If there's a Holy Grail of conventional wisdom in politics, it is the saying that money is the mother's milk. Rick Klein pens a tour de force to that effect this morning on Obama's looming cash advantage against McCain, replete with expert quotes about how Obama will be able to "dictate the terms of this election," be "the aggressor," "freeze the race," and "spend McCain into oblivion."

There's a lot of truth to these things, as there is with most conventional wisdom. But let me grab the third rail for a minute and throw out a counterintuitive hypothetical: what if money doesn't matter that much this year?

I'm not saying money won't matter at all, but what if it turns out Obama's massive cash advantage isn't so much of an advantage? Let's remember that Obama outspent Hillary Clinton by an order of magnitude in Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, and South Dakota and still lost all of those states - and in every state except TX and IN he lost by significant, and in some cases, HUGE margins. Obama's massive money advantage did not appear to matter much at all.

Obviously, the general election is a different animal than the primary. Obama will have an advantage in terms of organizing and using TV and direct mail to shape his image and also define and attack McCain in trying to win over Independents.

But there's also the possibility that, as with the primaries, Obama's vulnerabilities as a candidate are significant enough that McCain (and perhaps more specifically a 527 group) won't need a ton of money to be competitive in some key battleground states.

If nothing else, the general election appears to be shaping up as an interesting test case in asymmetrical political warfare.