Her work on children and education and family issues for decades (from Children's Defense Fund, to It Takes a Village, to SCHIP, etc), and her extensive outreach to the various Hispanic communities and media have all been paying off--and she benefits too from the better economy of the Clinton years.

In one of the debates, Obama actually lumped Hispanic families in with African-American families, and didn't even speak of the vast differences and vastly different concerns (he spoke of absent fathers and single parent families--and that's not at all the case for Hispanic families, nor one of their problems)

They don't know him at all, and they know her. Her practical emphasis has strong appeal--his soaring rhetoric doesn't.

I've read in many places that those who have no need of govt are the biggest supporters of Obama, while those of us who need healthcare or better schools and other things only Fed Govt can supply are clearly responding to Clinton. That we don't look to Presidents for hope or for inspiration, but for practical concrete fixes and actions.

Here are two articles that talk about Clnton's efforts to win hispanics in California. They began very early. Obama's began quite late.

This article focuses on Clinton's efforts to target and reach voters, including latin@ voters instead of relying on endorsements and surrogates. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...

And from the Post, Clinton's California Dream Team - ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020604317.html

Notice how Clinton approached hispanic voters and who she worked to get on her side. People like Dolores Huerta were much more important than Ted Kennedy and Clinton seemed to know that early. By the time Obama thought about wooing hispanics, it was over. I found the part in the Post article about Huerta's foray into East LA to meet with local leaders from all of Mexico's states pretty telling.

Hispanic families--Pew Hispanic Center has great stuff--

-- http://pewhispanic.org/factsheets/factsh...

on Social Security (from 2005)-- http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.ph... --
"... they are younger on average than the remainder of the U.S. population, which means that, as a group, their future as Social Security contributors and beneficiaries will be different from the future of non-Hispanics. Second, Hispanic workers tend to hold lower-paying jobs than the average U.S. worker and are less likely to have an employment-based pension. At all ages of adulthood Hispanics have lower average incomes and have accumulated less wealth than their white counterparts, and Hispanics currently over the age of 65 rely very heavily on Social Security retirement benefits as a source of income. For all these reasons, the nature, extent and timing of any changes to Social Security would have specific and distinct consequences for the Hispanic population. ... The survey also found that Latinos strongly favor measures that would limit benefits for the wealthy or increase Social Security taxes on them and oppose measures that would reduce benefits or eligibility for most retirees...."

Sirota--- http://action.credomobile.com/commentary...

What’s more, she brought Latinos into her inner circle, including her campaign manager, a fact not missed by her supporters.

Mark Penn is hispanic?

Mark Peññ.

Maybe I'm just projecting, because I really resent the way that the media sidelined Edwards in favor of Obamania, but...

I've always suspected that there may be some resentment in the Latin@ community over the way that Obama wiped Bill Richardson off the media radar the moment Obama started encouraging speculation about his running for president.

Basically, if you read campaign speculation 18 months ago, this was supposed to be a three way race --- Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson. Bill Richardson was someone who had paid his dues -- Congress, a cabinet post, and a governorship, and deserved to be treated as a leading candidate.

Then the media goes ga-ga over Obama, and richardson became a non-person.

policies and stances, and his soaring rhetoric at all--transformational, yet he's weaker than Clinton (who's not bold either) on so many issues like healthcare and energy, and economic stimulus, etc.

Please remember that Hillary has been planning to run for President for many years. She has gathered a substantial war chest of funds to that end. She began reaching out a long time ago because she had the money and the time. Obama and his wife finished paying off their student loans just a few years ago like me. They have had to scrap for everything like we have. Please don't be fooled that she cares about you. She is a calculator and has her eye on the prize. Neither she nor Bill have cared whom they have stepped on in the past.

Obama truly decided to get into the game rather late and as such has only his grass roots movement to propel him to the presidency. He is a caring individual who respects and loves his woman. He was right on Day One about the war where her judgment was clouded. He does not see color, riches or sex; he wants to make you and I better people. Is that not the sign of a great leader and one who can lead us to work together, as one, to better this land for everyone?

I can't imagine that "pimp walk" does much to raise the level of discourse.

... when Fitz gets his trial started?

That both of them are willing to undergo the Whitewater treatment, without evasion or repudiation?

Should they distance themselves from their local kingmaker, well then, wouldn't have they 'stepped' on him, on the way to the top?

"He does not see color, riches or sex; he wants to make you and I better people."

Whoa. If he doesn't see riches, and respect the hell out of them, and go after them with each spare breath he has, he won't have a general campaign to run. And if his supporters follow in his footsteps, and see neither color, riches or sex, how in the heck do they come up with all them colorful epithets for Mrs. Clinton? Must have talking points, somewhere....

(I'm trying to be polite and not call such swill direct Freeper oppo posting, because I refuse to believe that someone who's lived a life aware of Democratic goals and the damage Republicans have caused this country could be that sure that one election of just one man would allow any person to try making us better people. I'd settle for us not getting worse, and giving us access to tools and laws to stop the bleeding.)

[cgeye]