Who is better for a US President, a woman or a man?

A president's gender should really not be a factor. It's what that person can do for our country and hold the values you support.

Since women make good cops because they can talk down a situation a little more than men, instead of automatically reaching for a gun, I think a woman president, depending on who she is, could possibly be a better president than a man. I also think women that have given life, aren't so hasty to eradicate it (war)

It depends on the man or the woman--any other answer, in either direction, would be sexist. I believe that many women can be as good as or better leaders than some of the male leaders we've had. But that doesn't mean women are immediately better leaders.

Do you, in straight-faced honesty, still espouse that 300,000,000 may well be governed as 3 million were intended? By "one" man or by "one" woman?

It is a sacrilege that any among us dare rush in to crush as ignorant the clearly stated intentions of those who so deftly framed this well-conceived, modern world in a single document. Is it not?

In 1781 or thereabout, gender might well have been an issue. Today it isn't.

In 2007 (or 2008), with a U.S. population more than 100 times the size we were beneath the talon’s grip of the crown, one president represents the equivalent of a monarchy (yet a hundred times stronger).

Even a hundred presidents, as complex as things have become, would be the equivalent of a set of monarchs, each governing millions.

What to do? Well… Ideally, this recent (and oft-proposed) curiosity of a "jury-congress" or some such would likely be the only just system of governance for us all.

All of us would breathe anew, were we to be represented by so evenly-dispersed a government...(most of us, that is...notwithstanding, of course, those better served by pocket-puppies - AKA: richly purchased yes-yams, bottled-species custom-grown on Capitol-Hill, each sporting soccer babies and lipo-spouses.)

This "jury congress" (or, by whatever name is now preferred) is perhaps a supplanting of what was, till now, the "last best hope of mankind on earth".

It is, certainly so, now... after having given both the benefit-of-the-doubt and a liberal-credence to these three most-recent administrations - each claiming to have been, in structure and loyalty, a proper and respecting product of our blood-benevolently given frame-work of government.

Let us, now, as a nation of proud interlocutors, give no further “schoolmarm authority” to these condescending and patronizing dim-sorts proclaiming a sort of elevation beyond us, by right and stature...as if it were somehow granted in our hard-fought and earned-by-death Constitution. Nothing of the sort was ever granted to any concentrated power. No simple, limited cocktail gathering hovered within the imaginations of those, sweat-bound, aging, suit-clad statesmen as they impatiently crafted a document for hundreds of years of posterity.

In their sacrificial determination, they provided a world-whirled document deserving of nothing less than a foundational re-thinking of all, worldwide governing institutions and all their underlying precipices.

It depends on the woman or the man. I don't think gender is a plus or a minus in leadership.

Why should it make a difference if it is male or female. Only problem I see in 2008, Democrats have no one qualified enough to run for President. Hillary actually ran things, Bill was just the front, so she needs her mule brain put out to pasture.

a man

depends if it is a woman with balls or a president without brains.

gender dun matter as long as u can do a good job. i presume u r a democrat wanting to vote for clinton?

Hard to answer. I think it is a man's job to protect, but Thacher was amazing!!