Casey v. Rendell, or Rendell v. Casey?

You know, every analysis I've seen of the Pennsylvania primary is the Obama has to re-run the Ed Rendell strategy from the 2002 gubernatorial primary against Bob Casey, when he won only 10 counties but ran up the score around Philly. Now that Rendell has endorsed Clinton and Casey has endorsed Obama, is that at all operative anymore? Since the players are on the EXACT opposite sides?

Meanwhile, considering that Obama is well ahead in North Carolina (here's a good analysis of that state) and may be more popular in Puerto Rico than everyone thinks (although the indictment of the governor who is supporting him might be a blow), I'm not sure that Pennsylvania matters all that much. But I'm glad Obama is going for it. I want to see a winner actually win instead of back into the nomination at the end.