Assuming for the sake of argument you are relying on the NT passages concerning the role of the woman in the home and in the church, you cannot transform those general rules, however you interpret them, into an absolute prohibition against women as public leaders, because
1) The rules given pertain to home life and church life, not public life.
2) God always does what is right, and it was He who put Deborah in charge of Israel. Her “judgeship” was clearly a national leadership role (attempts to downplay it notwithstanding), and it was clearly ordained and blessed of God.
So there can be no absolute prohibition even under the most restrictive system of interpretation.
Furthermore, if your argument is that Deborah’s rise to public leadership only occurred because there were no men around up to the role, in effect a chastisement for the lack of Godly male leadership, then how does that differ from now?
Thank you.
Did you even read the comment that I responded to?
Some pathetic mangina was trying to prohibit any man from challenging Hillary.
Secondly Palin in teasing and refusing to run in 2012 has proven herself to care more about her own publicity than anything else.