But only just barely.

Hillary Clinton did manage to win by 10% in Pennsylvania -- but only after being up by 20 points in the polls as recently as two weeks ago.

Hillary Rodham Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary Tuesday, buoyed by support from women and blue-collar voters and pushing her duel with Barack Obama on to Indiana and North Carolina on May 6.

Amid brisk turnout, Clinton won a victory that many polls had predicted and which the New York senator had to have. The ultimate margin hovered around double digits — Clinton led 55 percent to 45 percent with nearly 80 percent of the vote counted — but no matter the numbers, her campaign insisted that a victory was a victory, particularly amid a spending onslaught by a more financially more robust Obama campaign.

"Some counted me out and said to drop out," Clinton told cheering supporters. "But the American people don't quit. And they deserve a president who doesn't quit, either."

"Because of you, the tide is turning."

As a practical matter, this means that the Democrats will be battling for at least two more weeks, into Indiana and North Carolina on May 6. It means more time beating and battering each other rather John McCain -- doing for us Republicans some of the work that we will need to do in the fall. And most importantly, it takes the edge off of the Obama inevitability arguments that have been laid out.

And hillary has made it clear that she is fighting to the bitter end -- saying that the race isn't over until the status of the Michigan and Florida delegates is decided, something that won't happen until the convention under most scenarios.

Not that all the Democrat-leaning media likes yesterday's outcome.

The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead.

Oddly enough, I have to both agree and disagree with the NY Times. I agree this campaign style is hurting the Dems -- but I'm not tired of it at all, and am rather enjoying it.

And the hypocrisy of the NY Times over the issue of negativity is rather striking, because the paper has engaged in just such substanceless attacks on John McCain several times in recent weeks. You would think the so-called "paper of record" would take its responsibility to real with issues rather than mean, vacuous stories that contribute nothing to the campaign.