Also, while I don't think hispanics are hostile to Obama, they haven't really warmed to him either.  That wouldn't matter if Romney were the nominee.  I think it's a potential problem if McCain is.  Clinton proved in California that she can not only win a lot of hispanic voters, she can bring them to the polls.   Hispanics typically make up 12-15% of democratic primary voters in California.  Tuesday they made up almost 30%.  They didn't come out because of some vague racial animus towards Obama, they came out FOR Clinton.  And in a lot of purple states, particularly out west, the ability to turn out hispanic support can make a huge difference in terms of our ability to turn it Blue.

Clinton is never going to win Georgia or Alabama or Idaho or Utah, but neither is Obama.  Clinton does have very strong support in Florida and Michigan, two key states for Dems.  And don't tell me about how Obama didn't campaign there so we don't know how he'd do.  He didn't campaign there so he hasn't done anything to build a base of support (dumbest thing ever was stripping Florida and Michigan of its delegates).  We saw in Florida a record number of Dems came out even without campaigning to vote and they supported Clinton.  So she's naturally stronger there.

And I believe she'd turn Arkansas blue and solidify other purplish states because polls show she better unites the democratic base.  The most recent one I read she only lost 9% of Dems to McCain.  Obama lost 18%.  Right now he makes it up with independents and Republicans, but they are going to be harder for him to hold onto than Democrats once the GOP machine kicks in.

I'd feel a lot better about Obama's ability to withstand McCain and the GOP if he'd ever run a tough race against a Republican.  The primary season has been a cakewalk for him in terms of attacks.  Clinton hasn't run negative television ads.  The press hasn't even really tried to rough him up.  That will change and I have no idea how he will react.  To date, I've been unimpressed with his ability to play defense on the rare occasions when he's been pressed.  

Plus, what I fear most about Obama is that he hasn't defined "change."  Sure, he has policy papers, but most voters don't read those.  They listen to the rhetoric.  Obama's is all about fixing D.C. and "change".  That's working for him in the primary because it allows folks to project onto him what they want to believe, making him popular with independents and Republicans.  But if he doesn't define change, then the GOP will define it for him.  Just as they defined Al Gore and John Kerry.  

People think Obama benefits from being new, I think that won't last.  Whatever else can be said about Hillary Clinton, people know her.  Yes, she's polarizing, but polls show she's not so polarizing she can't win.  And her numbers aren't likely to get worse because folks have already decided about her.  In fact, there's some evidence that the more she campaigns, the better her numbers get.  She gains by simply not being the evil witch the rightwing claims.  

Obama has relatively low negatives not because people know and love him, but because they don't know him.  By the time he gets to the election, he's going to be polarizing, too, only we don't know how bad his numbers will be.  They could end up worse than Clinton's.  Even more, minor issues will look worse on a candidate that the pundits have basically hailed as the second coming.  What would be chalked up as politics in any other candidate will look like hypocrisy on Obama.

We began this campaign one year ago on the steps of the old statehouse in Springfield. At the time, we made a bet on the American people. That bet was simple - we weren't going to change anything by relying on the same Washington games; instead, we were betting on the American people's hunger for change, and your ability to make change happen from the bottom-up.

or this:

It is time for a new generation of leadership, because the old politics just won't do. I am running for President - right now - because I have met Americans all across this country who cannot afford to wait another day for change.

Or this:

If you choose change, you will have a nominee who doesn't just tell people what they want to hear. Poll-tested positions and calculated answers might be how Washington confronts challenges, but it's not how you overcome them; it's not how you inspire our nation to come together behind a common purpose; and it's not what America needs right now.

..while actually spending considerably more on polling than the Clinton campaign?

Or this, during the Kennedy endorsement:

Ted Kennedy stands apart from the prevailing wisdom in Washington that has reduced politics to a game of tactics and transactions, in which no principle is beyond sacrifice. And his public life is a testimony to what can be achieved when you focus on lifting our country up, rather than tearing political opponents down.

Or this:

We are up against the idea that it's acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election. We know that this is exactly what's wrong with our politics; this is why people don't believe what their leaders say anymore; this is why they tune out. And this election is our chance to give the American people a reason to believe again.

All this from a guy who rejects a chance to talk directly to millions of voters because it is simply not to his tactical advantage.