Got it! “However, to win Ohio in the General Election you have to understand the line of scrimmage is in the suburbs and rural areas now – not the urban areas. ” Thank you.

If you want to read something far more interesting, read this comment about an event last night in the OH-11, which is Stephanie Tubbs Jones' district in Cleveland. She's endorsed Clinton.

Seriously, take all poll results with a grain of salt or twelve. The only one that counts is taken at the ballot box.

http://www.ohio.com/news/willard/15488471.html

“National security-minded women,” not soccer moms. Interesting choice of words.

“In the rustbelt state of Ohio Mrs Clinton is relying on the blue collar, lower-income vote, which has been solid for her elsewhere, as well as 'national security-minded women'. In Texas almost a third of the population is of hispanic origin, a group that skewed heavily towards her in Nevada and California, while she may also be backed again by a majority of Southern white men.

Mr Obama’s campaign acknowledges that Mrs Clinton 'unquestionably starts out' with significant advantages. But it insists they will run her close or even win one of these states.

Advisers point out that Latino voters have been more sympathetic to Mr Obama’s bid to become the first black president in states such as Arizona and New Mexico, where they are an established community and not competing with African-Americans for low-paid jobs or housing.

In Ohio he is expected to highlight the Clinton Administration’s record on free trade deals, such as Nafta, that are blamed for the loss of many manufacturing jobs. Both states are holding 'open contests' giving a voice to the independent voters who have backed him before in the Democratic nomination. And, most importantly of all perhaps, he now has the time and money to campaign hard.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_...

Incidentally, Huckabee, who's good with people, rates Obama higher than Clinton.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/02/12/huckab...

* * *

Meanwhile, the Republican opposition looks weak. The Hispanic leaning toward Clinton is illuminating (it foretells a similar, large Hispanic vote for Clinton in the Texas primary), but it also brings to mind what is probably the #1 issue people who want a conservative alternative to DC's Business As Usual have with not only McCain, but with the GOP leadership (and with President Bush, all of whom are satisfying the GOP's most powerful special interest, the business community). The level of opposition to amnesty is high not only among Republican voters but among Democratic voters (other than Hispanics) and everyone else. This is a fundamental and populist position, not a “nativist,” much less “xenophobic” [sic] or “racist” [sic] or ethnicist position.

[news story on McCain]

“Perhaps McCain's most destructive clash with his party was the Kennedy-McCain immigration reform bill that was ultimately blocked in the Senate.

The bill provided for a quasi-amnesty, or as supporters put it, a 'path to citizenship' for the estimated 12 million to 20 million illegal migrants now in the US.

Bob Shoemaker, a retired federal employee from Vienna, Va., echoed others at CPAC when he scoffed at the McCain assertion that he has learned his lesson from the public uproar over his bill.

Mr. Shoemaker explains: 'McCain says he's learned the lesson: people want the border guarded. But that is not the lesson. People don't want amnesty.'

He adds: 'Once you give amnesty, their children, brothers, and sisters can come in under family reunification laws. So it isn't going to be 20 million. It's going to be 70 million to 100 million.' Most of these migrants would be poor, uneducated, and would vote Democratic, Shoemaker says. 'The Republican Party is promoting its own demise.'

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0213/p09s02-coop….