Tomasky argues that it should be paid family leave:
In a nutshell, it’s popular. A survey commissioned in 2012 by a pro-leave group found that respondents supported the idea by 63 to 29 percent. Democrats were of course strongly in favor (85-10), but independents were at a still quite favorable 54-34, and even Republicans weren’t against it—they were evenly split at 47-48.
Far from being hammered by the right over such a proposal, I think Clinton could turn the tables. What percentage of women are going to be against this? In the pro-leave group’s poll, it was just 23 percent.
Of course the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable are going to go ape, but here we have facts, and the known facts suggest that in California paid leave has not been the nightmare that businesses feared. One study, by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, found that 89 percent of participating businesses reported a positive or no noticeable effect on productivity; 91 percent said the same about profitability and performance; 99 percent said the same about morale. Clinton will be able to find plenty of employers in California, and presumably New Jersey, who will sit in front of a camera for 30 seconds and testify that the law is just fine by them.
Cohn seconds Tomasky:
Of course, polling on an issue that hasn’t gotten much attention isn’t always reliable. Public sentiments could change if the Chamber of Commerce, which would spend heavily to fight such a plan, convinced Americans it would hurt the economy. And I plea totally guilty to political bias on this. I think paid leave is a great idea—an innovation that’s long overdue. But campaigns aren’t just about proposing what works politically. They’re also about laying the groundwork for a governing agenda. And while lots of people are skeptical that Clinton would take such a risk, if indeed she’s the nominee, I’m not. One reason is that she proposed such an initiative in 2007, the last time she ran for president.