The upsets in Iowa have almost made us forget about the women’s vote. Interestingly, Hillary Clinton, as I previously noted in passing, didn’t get women-Obama did.

Terrence Jeffrey put up an analysis of the female vote that noted:

“In Iowa …the fact that Clinton could become the first female president did not persuade female Democratic voters to support her.

“According to the television networks’ entrance poll of 2,136 voters attending the Democratic presidential caucuses last Thursday evening, Obama beat Clinton among all female voters 35% to 30%. (See results here.)

“The same poll indicated that Clinton beat Obama among married women 32% to 30%, but that Obama beat her by a larger margin among unmarried women who made up a larger share of the vote. Married women comprised only 29% of Democratic caucus goers.

“Obama, meanwhile, defeated Clinton 36% to 25% among the 71% of caucus voters who were either unmarried women or males, according to the entrance poll.”

What is fascinating is that going into Iowa, Clinton appeared to have a lock on the women’s vote. What happened?

Jeffrey’s analysis:

“The dramatic last-minute shift of female Democratic primary voters toward Obama could be driven by the perception among these voters that Obama is more likely than Clinton to effect ‘change,’ as well as the growing belief among New Hampshire Democratic voters in general that Obama is more electable than Clinton.

“‘Politically, unmarried women drive the mood for change in this country,’ Greenberg, Quinlan Rosner said in their October 31 report. ‘Seventy-eight percent of the cohort believes the country is on the wrong track.'”

While it’s refreshing that women aren’t voting on the basis of identity politics, “change,” unless defined as something other than a mantra, is probably not the best reason to vote for a candidate either.