'How Clinton Won In California' - hint: it involved getting more votes

The Chron has an analytical piece on the keys to Clinton's California victory yesterday, while still acknowledging that the practical outcome of her ten-point or so lead is really only a few delegates over Obama. (Link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/06/BA3IUT6L8.DTL)
 
The article notes:
 
"California has long been "Clinton country," but Hillary Rodham Clinton seized Super Tuesday's biggest prize by winning big among women, Latinos, Asian-Americans, gays and lesbians, older voters and working class Californians - which blunted Barack Obama's strong support from African Americans, white men and independents, according to exit polls.
 
"While Obama was able to carry some of the state's progressive centers - including San Francisco, Alameda, Marin and Santa Cruz counties - Clinton dominated in voter-rich Los Angeles County as well as Santa Clara County, Orange County and San Diego County. The New York senator also vacuumed up support in inland areas like Fresno, Riverside and San Bernardino counties."
 
I would've predicted Obama to have done better in LA County - thinking he'd get the more cutting-edge left while Clinton carried the now old-school New Democrats in more traditional counties - as she did in Orange and San Diego and inland.
 
"Obama proved once again his popularity among African-Americans, taking almost 4 out of 5 black votes in California. But Clinton more than compensated by winning among Latinos by a 2-to-1 margin and among Asian-Americans by a 3-to-1 margin.
 
""Asians were a surprise," said Bruce Cain, director of the University of California's Washington Center. "It's the first (presidential) election we have seen where Asian voters were a big factor. They are about 8 percent of the Democratic electorate.... The two major immigrant groups voted for Clinton as opposed to the candidate who has the immigrant background.""
 
Does that statement imply that all Asian voters are immigrants or have immigrant backgrounds (more recent than the rest of immigrant-built America, that is). To have that demographic result mean more, I'd want to know if we're talking about recent Asian immigrants or all Asian Americans. Otherwise, why the presumption?  There have been waves of Asian immigration to the US and to Cali several times over the past two centuries - about the same time as other European immigrant waves and we don't count them as immigrant groups.  Seems a bit contrived to me.
 
Clinton enjoyed strong returns across the state. But Obama did pick up Mono, Siskiyou, Plumas, Sierra, Yolo, Nevada and Alpine counties. Everyone knows as goes Siskiyou, so goes the Nation, er, State. No?