To the extent I'm able, I want to nip this argument in the bud.
On CNN this morning, Hillary Clinton said the votes in Ohio and Texas were in part a reflection of McCain's recent ascendance to the Republican nomination. She said:
It is now about who is strongest against the Republican nominee John McCain. You know, people who voted a month ago didn't know who the Republican nominee was going to be. They didn't perhaps factor in that it will be about national security because, indeed, with Senator McCain, that's what it will be about.
And what happened yesterday is that voters said, look, we want somebody who can go toe-to-toe with John McCain on national security. We want someone who can be a good steward of the economy. We're looking for a commander-in-chief and a president ready on day one. And I think that's what the voters in the upcoming states will decide as well.
Here's why I don't buy that: McCain became the presumptive nominee on February 7 when Romney dropped out. Huckabee was never a serious threat.
Since February 7, six states voted, all of them for Obama. McCain was no more the nominee on March 4 than on February 12, the day of the Potomac primary. Voters in those six states knew the eventual Democratic nominee would face McCain.
Clinton's chronology doesn't hold up here.
