Electability is like obscenity: you know it when you see it.

In other words, the only way to prove that you're electable is by, you know, getting elected--which doesn't make it the most useful yardstick for people (and superdelegates) still trying to decide whom to vote for. But try telling that to Hillary Clinton. Ever since it became clear in February that there was no chance she could erase Barack Obama's 100-plus pledged-delegate lead (and very little chance that she could pass him in the popular vote), Clinton's camp has sought to sway the uncommitted, all-powerful superdels by arguing that Obama's weakness with white, working-class voters makes her the more electable Dem vis a vis John McCain. Of course, by the time the American people have a chance to prove her right or wrong--i.e. November--it'll be too late. So for Clinton, creating the perception of electability--pronto--is paramount. And there's no better way to do it than polling.

Luckily for Clinton, the recent stats seem to be on her side. This afternoon, top Clinton adviser Harold Ickes blasted a memo to reporters ("HRC Strongest v. McCain") that reads like a round-up of intramural basketball scores: 50-34, 42-42, 25-13. He's right to let the numbers do the talking. For starters, Clinton leads McCain in each of the four head-to-head polls released since Tuesday: AP-Ipsos (50-41), CBS/New York Times (48-43), Fox (45-44) and Gallup (46-45). And she's up in the key swing states, too, trouncing the Arizona senator by 10 points in Ohio (48-38), eight points in Florida (49-41) and a whopping 14 in Pennsylvania (51-37), according to Quinnipiac. Ickes' implication: if Clinton picks up either Ohio or Florida in November, she'll win the White House. End of discussion.

Should we perceive Clinton as electable? Sure. But the thing is, her perceived electability is only relevant if she can create the complimentary impression that Obama is unelectable; otherwise, there's no reason to choose her over him. With that in mind, it's worth looking at Obama's numbers. Nationally, Obama beats MCain in the AP-Ipsos poll (46-44), ties him in the CBS/NYT survey (45-45) and manages to finish within the margin of error in Fox (43-46) and Gallup (44-46). Meanwhile, Quinnipiac shows the Illinois senator trailing McCain by one point each in Ohio (43-44) and Florida (42-43) and crushing him by nine in Pennsylvania (47-38). In other words, the senators from Illinois and Arizona are essentially tied--or, if you count Wisconsin and Iowa, where Obama clobbers McCain (and, coincidentally, McCain clobbers Clinton), Obama has the edge. Polls, of course, can't predict whom people will vote for in November; they can only measure whom they'd pick if the election were held today. And at perhaps the lowest moment of his campaign--after losses in the Ohio, Texas* and Pennsylvania primaries; after Wright's emergence and reemergence; after Bittergate; and as he fights a two-front war against Clinton and the entire Republican Party, which is completely ignoring the former First Lady--Obama would still be the heavy favorite to win the White House. When you consider that the guy has yet to set his $300 million sights solely on McCain, those numbers don't exactly scream "unelectable" to me.

Still, it's up to the superdelegates to decide--and for the moment, at least, Clinton has the upper hand on electability. How much will that matter in the end? I suspect we'll know it when we see it.

*Obama won the Texas caucuses but lost the Texas primary.