Clinton 38%
Obama 19%
Edwards 17%
Richardson 4%
Biden 4%

Caveat is that this poll is of course a pre-debate poll.

http://www.workingcalifornians.com/story /analysis_of_ca_primary_voters_survey_de mocratic_horse_race

The 19% differential is the largest lead Clinton has had since primary polling began in California.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_pol ling_for_the_Democratic_Party_%28United_ States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008 #California

Clinton has led in the previous 5 polls conducted in the state, but it is obvious that her lead in California has been growing steadily since polling began in January.  This poll also serves to confirm the last 2 polls conducted (first week of April Survey USA showed a 17% Clinton lead, up to then the largest recorded gap between Clinton and Obama) and the Field Poll before that (March 20-21) showed her lead at 13%.

Some interesting and perhaps somewhat contradictory findings:

Clinton's lead is slightly greater (41%) among those paying very close attention to the primary, while Edwards and Obama tie for second place with 18% each. However, among those paying only somewhat close attention, Clinton's support slips slightly to 36% while Obama's support jumps to 25%, and Edwards receives 16%. Democratic primary voters who are not closely following the election are the least supportive of Obama, offering him just 13% of their vote, compared to 38% to Clinton and 17% to Edwards.

My analysis:  Clinton's support grows to 41% amongst the data group of folks paying VERY close attention to the primary. She gains 3% over her general polling averages.   Amongst that highly engaged group Obama actually loses 1% (to 18%) while Edwards gains 1% (to 18%.)   The more folks are paying attention, the more likely they are to vote for Clinton, as per this poll.   The secondary group is the group that pays "somewhat close attention."  This group is not very engaged but somewhat interested.  Here Clinton still leads the pack, but she slips to 36% support, Obama's jumps to 25%, Edwards loses a couple (is at 16%.)   The "somewhat" engaged group is Obama's strongest, this is where he gets much more than his support average.   Amongst those least engaged Clinton gets 38%, Obama drops to 13%, Edwards is at 17%.     So, the more engaged folks are, the more likely they are to go for Clinton, the "somewhat" group is more Obama friendly, and the currently least interested group is at about the same level as the averaging of all 3 groups.    That would explain why in many polls Obama's support is shown to be somewhat softer than both Clinton's and Edwards'.  It seems that he gets a good chunk of not fully (or very) but somewhat engaged folks to his side, support that seems to fall off somewhat the more engaged polled individuals become.  

Another data point:

"While Senator Clinton is almost universally known among California Democratic primary voters, with firm impressions established in voters' minds, her opponents have room for growth. Among voters paying very close attention to the presidential primary, Clinton is viewed favorably by 77%; she is equally popular (79%) among those paying somewhat close attention, and drops significantly in favorability (63%) among those not paying close attention, though she does maintain her name identification at 94% or higher across all three segments. Obama is known by 90% of those paying close attention, and viewed favorably by 73%; among those paying somewhat close attention, 80% know him and 69% like him; among those not paying close attention, just 59% have heard of him and 45% are favorable towards him. Edwards is known by 83% of those paying close attention to the presidential primary, but known by just 69% of those not paying close attention. He is viewed favorably by 72% of those paying very close attention, 66% of those paying somewhat close attention, and 56% of those not paying close attention."

Again, we have a similar theme.  The engaged poll respondent (either VERY engaged or SOMEWHAT engaged) tends to view Clinton very favorably (77% and 79% respectively) whereas amongst those not paying close attention her favorability drops to 63%.   This (and the previous data point) suggests that low-info and low-interest respondents are less likely to support Clinton, but are more likely to do so the more they pay attention to the primaries.    The good news for Clinton here is that it appears that as voters become more engaged, they also become more Clinton-friendly.  If the person remains low-interest throughout (which usually also means low-info) that person is is also the least likely to then show up on primary day to vote.  In that scenario her somewhat sharp drop amongst low-interest-in-the-primaries respondents does then not become a factor.  

Next data point:

The race is far more competitive among voters who are familiar with all three top-tier candidates. Among these voters, Clinton's total drops to 34%, while Obama's support increases to 24% and Edwards' support rises to 20%; just 10% of these most knowledgeable voters are undecided. This provides further evidence that part of Senator Clinton's lead is based on her higher name recognition, an advantage that could disappear as primary day approaches.

The race becomes somewhat more competetive when all 3 candidates are known, but still a double-digit lead.  We don't know the makeup of this particular grouping as for "engagement," which may explain the apparent contradiction here.  From a previous data point we know that the very interested/involved/engaged group shows Clinton her strongest support of all groups, yet should that highly involved group not also automatically know all 3 Democratic candidates?  
I tend to believe that Engagement and interest trumps "knowledge" of the candidates, thus the advantage Clinton has amongst those very engaged in the primary process weighs heavier (and her favorability as high as it is amongst the two "engaged" groups,) which makes her California lead quite formidable.  Still, this data point is something that bears watching for her camp.  While her lead in California has grown over the last 2 months, Edwards and Obama are both relatively strong candidates who bring something to the table and have a strong following.  The California race is not "over" by any means, and nobody is invoking the dreaded "inevitability" theme.   Still, IMO at this point Clinton has to be considered the odds-on favorite to win this state on February 5, 2008.  

Issues:

Clinton beats Edwards and Obama on all 5 issues polled.  Those issues are Jobs, Environment, Education, Healthcare and Iraq.

Jobs:   Clinton 45%, Obama 17%, Edwards 24%

Not surprisingly, Edwards does better than Obama with those who stated jobs as one of their two most important issues.

Environment:  Clinton 32%, Obama 31%, Edwards 12%

For some reason Obama has apparently captured some of the enviromental buzz.   Both Clinton and Edwards are doing relatively poorly here (relative to their overall polling.)

Education:  Clinton 43%, Obama 15%, Edwards 12%

A big advantage for Clinton on education.  Both Obama and Edwards are faring badly in this category.

Healthcare:  Clinton 38%, Obama 17%, Edwards 17%

Strong advantage for Clinton.  Edwards does not do well here, despite (or perhaps partly because of) his health care proposal already out there.  

Iraq:   Clinton 38%, Obama 21%, Edwards 19%

Again, a fairly strong advantage for Clinton on this issue.  Basically, this goes to the question of who is most trusted to be best for "what to do" with Iraq, and apparently, past votes make no discernible difference, neither Obama's non-support of the Iraq war (caveat:  Obama was not on the national scene yet,) nor Clinton's or Edwards' AUMF vote and subsequent followups.  

If Clinton can maintain these strong impressions that she would be a good fit for voter's Education, Healthcare, Jobs, and Security needs, she will be the candidate to beat.  

Some more data internals in the poll.  Please use the link to the poll.