Senator Hillary Clinton didn't even have a few hours to bask in the glory of her Pennsylvania victory before she was making the pitch. She needed money. Badly. Her campaign debt was already the subject of national news stories. In her victory speech that night Clinton asked people to give money that night. Luckily, her campaign claims they raised $10 million after the victory.

While there is no shortage of analysis about which candidate has how many delegates, right now it is the money game that matters most. Already in the elected delegate count it is nearly impossible for Clinton to be ahead of Barack Obama before the national convention.

If she has any shot at getting the nomination two things have to happen. First, she has to continue to win states that allow her to appear competitive and raise money for the next contest. Second, she needs superdelegates to go her way. Considering the second is contingent on the first, Clinton has to be focused on money. Money is the only way she can compete in later contests.

This gets to Montana. Montana's Democratic primary, alongside South Dakota, is held on June 3, the last primary day. Last week in Pennsylvania Clinton was able to gain nine delegates on Obama. For all of the breathless coverage and attention of Pennsylvania if Clinton doesn't have the money to compete in Montana those nine delegates could be wiped out.

Montana awards their 16 delegates baed on a complicated, but proportional system. To receive any delegates she would need at least 15 percent support. Unless she drops out she is nearly gauranteed that. 

This is not to suggest that Clinton is taking the contest lightly. Before both Clinton and Obama attended a major Democratic Party fund-raiser there earlier in the month, Bill Clinton went there to lay down the ground work.

And besides delegates the stakes couldn't be higher because it is the last chance to grab momentum before the Denver convention.

When we look back on this year we could be looking at what
happened in Montana, not Pennsylvania.