I didn’t watch or read anything last night about the Pennsylvania primary. Maybe I should have, because I would have dropped some Dramamine before reading the dizzying spin and analysis of Hillary Clinton’s big win last night. Or was it a big win? Or did she really win? Or is that really her name?

The once-boy genius Karl Rove summed up the Democratic race this way on Fox:

"The rule of proportionality means that the thing that allowed Barack Obama to get ahead, it is difficult for him to fall behind. It's also difficult for him to catch up."

Yes, so true. But if a man is looking at a picture of a man on the wall and states: Brothers and sisters I have none, but this man's father is my father's son. Who is the man in the picture in relation to the man looking at the picture?

The votes weren’t all counted last night before it was clear that the race between Clinton and Obama will go on. The Fix is headlined this morning:

Clinton Wins. Or Does She?

… At issue is whether ten points -- if that is indeed the final margin -- will provide Clinton with the required momentum (and money) for the New York senator as she looks forward to Indiana and North Carolina on May 6.

At Politico, Mike Allen has this handy round-up of the morning headlines:

N.Y. Post: "TAKE THAT! Hill slams Bam by 10 in Penn."

N.Y. Daily News: "HERE WE GO AGAIN! He won't win, she won't lose … "

N.Y. Times, 4 cols., 1 line: "Clinton Clearly Outduels Obama in Pennsylvania."

Newsday: "She's Still Got A Shot. But it's a long shot, as Obama retains strong lead in delegates, money."

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "Clinton wins, the race goes on"

The A1 Philly Inquirer analysis is headed, "Obama still leads race, but the doubts remain."

Dan Balz, WashPost A1 analysis: "Decisive Win Can't Forestall A Daunting Task."

The Clinton campaign theme is now “The Tide is Turning.” That’s in at least three press releases this morning. Obama’s comeback is it’s a “fundamentally unchanged race.”

That’s what Josh Marshall sees.

I'd say the real story is that this leaves us basically where we were. It was a decisive win for Hillary but that was the expectation.

Remember when some Democrats said a tough primary battle between Obama and Clinton was good for Democrats? The big headline at The Huffington Post this morning is

AND THE WINNER IS: JOHN MCCAIN

That links to this New York Times story:

For better or worse — and many Democrats fear it is for worse — the race goes on.

Checking in with the partisans, at Daily Kos, the lead item in what is often unfriendly territory for Clinton says,

Forget the spin: the race is where it is. Clinton won Pennsylvania. …

What bothers me, however, is the increasingly insulting quality of the campaign and surrogate spin as each successive campaign day wears on. It is fine to celebrate a Pennsylvania win -- by all means, a victory is a victory, and a significant and hard-fought one at that -- but all I ask in politics is that the spinners of each camp try their best to not make it ITAL quite so obvious that they think the rest of us really are a spectacular new species of rubes, able to be led by the nose to whatever ridiculous and improbable conclusion would best benefit a particular camp.

Do any of you still think the Clinton/Obama battle is good for the Democratic Party?