If there is one thing that most unfairly haunts women it is their career choices. Women around the world struggle with what career path to take after graduating from college. And once they've chosen that path they face any number of other obstacles. When I marry should I leave my job? When I decide to have children, should I be a working mom or stay home? If I choose to stay home, when is an appropriate time to re-enter the workforce?

Who knew we had a champion in our midst? My colleague on the Thomas Jefferson Street blog, Robert apparently is more of a pro than he thinks. Robert was asked to call the presidential race in 20 battleground states for PoliticsHome.com's daily battleground poll. No one called the states perfectly but Robert topped the list with 18 correct calls. That's pretty impressive if you ask me. Not only did he win the category for mainstream media but he also beat NBC's political guru Chuck Todd. Now that's something to brag about. But he does tell me he can't remember which states he got wrong. I demand a recount.

So now that we know Robert's a star, how did your election predictions turn out?

We all knew there was a gender gap in politics, but what we didn't know is that there is also a distinct beauty gap. A new study out today from Northwestern University found that looks matter, especially for female candidates. So maybe John McCain made a good decision in picking Sarah Palin?

Most shocking was the strong language used to describe why men vote for women candidates. "While gender bias related to a female candidate's attractiveness was consistent across both male and female voters, good looks was almost all that mattered in predicting men's votes for female candidates," according to the release announcing the study. (The bold is mine.)

I fancy myself somewhat of an expert on elections, but you'll never catch me calling an election well before voters go to the polls. But now, with less than a week left, even I might start making predictions. It's time for the pros, and the amateur prognosticators, to make their picks. That's why we've launched Are You Smarter Than the Pros?—so that you can call the races and show us up. (Rumor has it my Thomas Jefferson Street colleague Robert Schlesinger will actually post his picks so you can tell him he's wrong.)

So, who will win the presidential election? Tell us at usnews.com/electionpicks and in the comment section below.

Women are important this election cycle. They are donating more money and voted in high numbers during the primaries, but they aren't changing their opinions about candidates willy-nilly as some would have you believe.

The buzz is that John McCain had captured the support of white women because of Sarah Palin. But here's the rub: white women haven't behaved any differently from the general population. They haven't been swinging as wildly as my colleague Bonnie and many others have suggested.

Over the last few days, Sarah Palin started to come out of her shell. She did an interview with Katie Couric and took a question on the way out of an event. She performed less than exceptionally, to put it nicely. Robert, who was decidedly less nice, called the interview painful. After these bumbled interviews, questions about her ability to lead have reached fever pitch and now even some conservatives are calling for her to rethink her candidacy. Kathleen Parker writes on National Review Online that Palin should just drop out for the good of her party and her country. After all, Parker says, "No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first."

What do you think? Post your thoughts in the comments section.

Women control more than half of the wealth in the United States but typically they cling to it rather than give it to political candidates. So, if a candidate could unlock half of the money in the country, they'd be a sure thing, right?

Well, money doesn't always lead to victory, but the correlation is pretty strong. So, why, when women vote in higher percentages than men, donate to charities at a higher rate than men, and control significant wealth, do they typically constitute less than half of the total amount of political contributions?