“Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn’t won any of the significant states — outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.”

That’s Clinton strategist Mark Penn on February 14th, laying the groundwork for what is now referred to as Hillary Clinton’s “Big State” strategy. According to her camp, Democrats should ignore both Barack Obama’s pledged delegate and popular vote lead and nominate Clinton because she can win the states that purportedly matter. Among those that apparently don’t matter are what one Clinton aide is calling the “boutique” caucus states:

“Obama has won the small caucus states with the latte-sipping crowd. They don’t need a president, they need a feeling.”

Over at the Huffington Post, Robert Creamer recently took his time dismantling the theory. The most obvious rebuttal, made early in the piece, is that the Democrats could run my dog in a handful of Clinton’s “key” primary victories and still come away victorious in November:

Most of the “Big States” she has won are not battleground states in the fall. New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California are solid blue states where Obama would do as well or better than Clinton in a general election against McCain.

Secondly, while Ohio swung for Clinton rather convincingly March 5, McCain would have a ton of ground to make up against either Democratic candidate in the Buckeye State. According to a SurveyUSA poll released a day after the Ohio primary, McCain trails both candidates 50-40, with 10 percent undecided. In fact, one could make the case that Obama is actually better suited to win Ohio, given his appeal to young people (59-32 advantage over McCain) and his overwhelming support among independents (60-28 over McCain; Clinton actually trails McCain in this demographic 43-41). More from Creamer:

In an Ohio general election, Obama’s ability to attract independents and mobilize young and minority voters will trump Clinton’s advantages among non-college whites — a group that will break heavily for either Barack or Hillary against the “free trade” McCain.

The essence of the Clinton’s camp argument is that no Democrat can win the presidential election without taking Ohio and Pennsylvania. But while that may be true in her case, it overlooks the ways in which Obama is discarding this tired electoral math by expanding the playing field.

He has big head-to-head leads in the Rocky Mountain West (New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado) as well as in Virginia — all states where McCain outdistances Clinton, according to SurveyUSA. He also holds statistically significant advantages in the battleground states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Minnesota and puts a variety of “red states” (North Carolina, Alaska, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Texas) into play.

Moreover, by contesting such a broad array of states, he forces the GOP to redirect resources out of the normal battlegrounds of Ohio and Pennsylvania, thus increasing his chances of winning there.

It’s also important to keep in mind that Obama’s Pennsylvania campaign is just getting started and therefore the head-to-head findings there are likely more fluid than in other states where he has already campaigned. Indeed, if Texas and Ohio are any indication, the more voters see of Obama, the more they like him.

So, combine a general election victory in Pennsylvania with wins in Ohio, Virginia, Michigan — then add the other non-”significant” states Obama is positioned to win — and suddenly you have a Democratic candidacy with potential broad national support. In big and small states alike.