It's not about where they are, it's about how they got here.

I have a great deal of respect for Clinton's new chief strategist, Geoff Garin.  I've met him in person several times and think he's ridiculously well-versed in political history and strategy, and sharp as a tack, in addition to being very polite and respectful for someone with such national political prominence.  Makes a lot of sense--you don't get to be the head of one of the nation's premiere political strategy firms for no reason.

That said, I must express my disagreement with Mr. Garin's assessment about the current state of the race in Pennsylvania.

With all due respect to Geoff, the idea that a failure on Obama's part to win Pennsylvania outright signals trouble for his campaign is a serious case of spinning.  But out of respect to Geoff, rather than simply dismiss it out of hand, I will provide a series of rationales.

Quoth Mr. Garin:

"Those numbers are ridiculous," Garin said. "Sen. Obama made a conscious decision to try and change the stakes here. They’re not spending this money simply to try and improve the Pennsylvania economy." They "put their brand at stake to try and deliver this knock out blow."

Prima facie, this argument is problematic because close doesn't just matter in horseshoes--it matters in Democratic primaries.  The now-insurmountable lead in pledged delegates that Obama enjoys is precisely because he racked up large margins in the states he had an advantage in, and keeping it close in the large states that were not favorable to him.  Mr. Garin seems to think that if Obama can't win, he shouldn't bother spending the money to compete--but the history of the race tells us that Obama's ability to compete is why he's the frontrunner, even in contests he doesn't win outright.

A second basic point is that, yes, the size of the lead that Obama will have in pledged delegates matters to the superdelegates who will decide this election for us when all is said and done.  First of all, the more pledged delegates that Obama wins means one more superdelegate that Hillary has to win in order to overturn Obama's lead in pledged delegates, and second, the larger Obama's pledged delegate lead is, the less likely it will be that undecided superdelegates will want to overturn the pledged delegate results.  Thus, the difference between losing Pennsylvania by 15 points and losing by 5--which represents a potential swing of a dozen or two delegates--seriously matters.

Third, of course, is the popular vote.  The Clinton campaign knows that it has to make an argument based on electability to get a large majority of the remaining superdelegates to upend Obama's lead based on the voters, and the popular vote total is one of Hillary's last remaining chances to do so.  As it currently stands, Obama's popular vote lead is estimated to be over 500,000 votes.  According to RealClearPolitics as linked above, Obama currently leads the popular vote by 100,000 even with Florida and Michigan included, and discounting estimates of the caucus states of WA, IA, NV and ME.  If the Clinton campaign is going to argue to the superdelegates that the winner of the popular vote in the Democratic primaries deserves the vote of the superdelegates, maintaining that popular vote lead--and denying Hillary her last best chance to make up ground according to that metric as well--is of paramount importance.

Those are just the basic reasons why, all else being equal and given the current situation, Obama's closure of the 20-point gap between himself and Hillary in Pennsylvania--should it actually occur--matters, even if Obama doesn't win the state outright.

But all else isn't equal.  And what makes it unequal is the story of how we got here in the first place.

First off, let's discuss why Obama has the ability to close this gap at all: his huge fundraising advantage.  Right now, Hillary's campaign is in debt.  Over half their warchest is reserved for the general election, which obviously comes from people who have already donated more than the $2,300 limit for the primary season, and the campaign's debts are larger than its primary campaign COH.  I think this needs to said one more time for the purposes of better digestion: The Clinton team--with its massive network of high-level donors and a base of traditional Democrats--is out of money, which is allowing a previously relative unknown to wallop her on the airwaves and close the gap in a state that should have voted for her overwhelmingly.  In a Democratic primary.

If Obama were running against any other candidate besides Hillary Clinton--a politician with instant name recognition with a solid base of support from older traditional Democrats who are nostalgic about her husband's presidency--this contest wouldn't even be close.  But the fact that Obama continues to raise incomprehensible amounts of money from small-dollar donations, while Hillary's campaign is basically broke, is a testament to Obama's long-term viability, especially as we move into a general election where candidates will have to move beyond the base and attract independent or swing voters.

Just as importantly when we're talking about discussions of electability, let's remember that Obama has, once again, had one of his worst media periods in the week or two directly preceding a primary that favors Senator Clinton.  Before Ohio, Obama was falsely hammered on allegations that he was duplicitous regarding his position on NAFTA.  This time, it has been a constant stream of accusations regarding his supposed elitism, his connection with 60's radicals who did very bad things when Obama was 8 years old, and, most crucial of all, flagpins.  And despite that, Obama has a very good chance of reducing the margins in PA today significantly enough to effectively stifle any chance Clinton has to make a convincing case to superdelegates that she is more electable, despite being 19 points down not very long ago.

Bottom line: despite any and all spin from the Clinton team, Obama's run in PA will be a great success if he keeps the margins lower than expected, despite his inherent disadvantages.