Clinton must now fight for female vote

In a devastating outcome for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, this was the most unkindest cut of all: Women flocked to Bernie Sanders. Not by single digits, but by a margin of 55 to 44 percent.

These numbers matter, and not, as Shakespeare wrote of Brutus stabbing Caesar, because “ingratitude, more strong than traitors’ arms, quite vanquish’d him.” Clinton is not vanquished by what she and her supporters may see as female voters’ ingratitude; she will soldier on.

But moving forward, the candidate and her campaign need to figure out how better to speak to women, especially younger ones. In particular, they need to navigate the treacherous waters of cel- ebrating the prospect of the first female president without sounding as if that is a qualification in itself. Or, worse, as if female voters tempted by Sanders are traitors to the feminist cause — Brutus to Clinton’s Caesar.

Women are key to electoral success, especially for a Democrat. Not so long ago, analysts could debate whether the country was ready to elect a female president. Not anymore. If Clinton loses the nomination or the general election, she won’t have been defeated because she’s a woman. She’ll have lost despite it.

Consider these numbers. Women accounted for 57 percent of Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa, where they provided Clin- ton’s millimeter-thin margin of victory. They constituted 55 percent of Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire. Even though Clinton did not garner a majority of support among women, according to network exit polls, female voters significantly softened Sanders’ win. Men backed him by an astonishing 67 to 32 percent.

Women similarly make up the majority of general election voters — 53 percent in 2012. While Republican nominee Mitt Romney won the majority of male voters (54 to 46 percent), women supported Barack Obama (56 to 44 percent).

So what should Clinton do? First, drop the argument that gender is Clinton’s anti-establishment calling card. “Honestly, Senator Sanders is the only person who I think would characterize me, a woman running to be the first woman president, as exemplifying the establishment,” Clinton said at the most recent debate.

Second, stop the insinuations that Clinton is a victim of sexism. Yes, the “Bernie bros” have tweeted ugly things. Yes, women who raise their voices face criticism that is not leveled at shouting men. But the Clinton campaign has been too quick to suggest sexism when confronted with what is simply politics as usual.

Third, cut the guilt-tripping. It won’t only fail to convince younger women, it’s going to insult their mothersl. Madeleine Albright was understandably frustrated about complacent young women who fail to grasp the significance of electing the first woman president, but the former secretary of state edged into of- fensive lecturing.

“There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other,” she said.

This is true in general, and great advice on a Starbucks cup. It’s offensive in the specific context of instructing young women about their electoral obligation. Clinton would have been better advised to acknowledge this point than to dismiss it.

“Well good grief, we’re getting offended by everything these days,” she told NBC’s Chuck Todd, channeling her inner Trump. Not everything. Just suggestions that it’s a slap to the sisterhood to fail to support the female candidate.

Feminism doesn’t mean imposing a moral obligation on women to vote a certain way. It means trusting them, not demeaning them, when they choose the candidate they like best, male or female. Even if their mothers disagree.

Ruth Marcus is syndicated by The Washington Post Writers Group.