[fwdude]

I fully agree. There are fundamental differences between men and women that matter. That this even needs to be articulated on a conservative website is ridiculous; it's a conservative axiom. Does it even need to be pointed out that the converse of this is radical feminism?

Differences that, on the whole, make a man more qualified than a woman for this highest office in the land doesn't mean there are not exceptions. Thatcher was an extraordinary leader of Great Britain, with the intestinal fortitude of a man, but she was a rare exception. Yes, there are more qualified men than Palin or Bachmann, but there's now a strange, novel type of "political correctness" in conservatism that makes say so verboten.

[Tribemike1]

Agree....one of the worst ideas the republic fell for was women’s suffrage and my wife agrees.

You see, women tend to vote for “Prom king” while men vote for “commander-in-chief”. Women elected Clinton and Obama...they were prom-king like.

Also, of course it isn’t scientific, but many women acquaintences I have ....at work, church, etc....the vast majority do not like Sarah Palin. Guess what...100% of them are what you would call plain janes...not attractive at all. They see Sarah, very good looking, nice husband...and throw rocks at her. Women tend to cat fight over nothing.

Put up an ugly broad on the left...women will support her 60-40...republicans cannot win at that game.

We tried trailblazing with the Supreme Court, Condy Rice, ...it did us no good politically.

[FreeReign]

I fully agree. There are fundamental differences between men and women that matter. That this even needs to be articulated on a conservative website is ridiculous;

Yup. It goes without saying that the current crop of male candidates are nad-less.