The Comeback Kid 2!

Anyone else love the excitment of watching election returns? I couldn't peel myself away from the tv until it was all over or, as it were, not even close to over. The contest for both parties' nominee is just getting started!

Hillary did what the polls and the pundits said she couldn't and pulled out a win in New Hampshire. Although she never lagged Obama in the returns the entire night, CNN and FoxNews refused to name her the winner until seconds before Obama began his second-place speech. It was funny to watch them essentially be "scooped" by the candidate himself.

After her loss in Iowa, it seems like the news guys were afraid to say Hillary had a chance. Until it was inevitable. In fact, I think there's a lot of that going around. Certainly, she's a polarizing figure. But as I think I've mentioned in a prior post, few people can put their finger on why or what they don't like. The tone of her voice? The fact that she's not the most dynamic orator?

It's not because she's a woman. Or even if it were, no one would admit it. I don't support her because she's a woman, either. As Gloria Steinem put it in her NY Times Op-Ed yesterday “I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman.”

While gender is not the main reason to support or not support a candidate, it's impossible to ignore that gender does matter. Think not? Let me tell you a story about two women I know. One lives in North Dakota and the other in Florida. They don't know each other and they have little in common, but they have both learned the same hard lesson: for them, becoming a mom means losing a job.

One was fired as her due date approached last fall. Although she has since found a new and hopefully better job after spending several (unpaid) weeks with her daughter, she was told by an attorney that she had no legal recourse and to basically forget about it and move on.

The other started a new job last fall and shortly thereafter found out she is pregnant. Upon telling her boss, she learned that because she won't have worked there for one year by the time the baby is born, she is not eligible for any maternity leave (even under FMLA). If she cobbles together all her vacation and sick time, she can take five weeks off, but must return to work after that and then will have zero days to take for an entire year. They have essentially told her that she may as well quit her job and reapply. And this is an organization whose sole mission is "eliminating cancer as a major health problem." One would imagine that they advocate time off for cancer treatment, but don't offer their own employees that same advantage for having a child.

Becoming a mom should not mean losing a job. It's utterly shocking that that isn't an outright violation of civil rights laws. In fact, women should not have to choose between having a career and having a family. Certainly, leaving work to stay at home is a nice to choice to be able to make, but many, many women don't have that luxury. For those who do, leave policies like those in Europe (up to 18 months paid leave to be used by both parents) coupled with flexible work policies might give them the freedom to continue pursuing their careers.

Gender does matter. This is not an anti-man statement. In fact, I think Obama (and Edwards, for that matter) recognize the importance of family-friendly work policies and would encourage them as president. But I've read numerous reports that today's young women (20s and 30s) don't think there is a gender gap and therefore don't see how having a woman lead the most powerful nation on earth would benefit them. I'll admit, the gender balance in our country will not automatically reverse the day Hillary takes office. There won't be 490 female Fortune 500 CEOs and the salary gap won't disappear. But the face of power will look more like the one I see in the mirror than it ever has before. And that, I believe, will irrevocably alter the way every woman sees herself.