Let's put it all in perspective: Hillary Clinton was suppose to win Pennsylvania.

What is infinitely confounding and frustrating about the media coverage of Clinton's "crucial" win in Pennsylvania is that her popularity in the Keystone State was never in question. Opinion polls from Public Policy Polling, SurveyUSA, and the American Research Group, all from within the last three weeks showed Hillary Clinton with 20-point leads over Barack Obama, and yet, for the third time in this interminable Democratic Primary season, she's being hailed as a comeback hero. Her victory in Pennsylvania is being touted as the fuel that she needs to keep going, and the justification for her campaign that she's the more electable Democrat.

But to that ignorant assertion, I have two questions: first, how does a victory that closes Barack Obama's massive 130 delegate lead by a mere 15 convention votes constitute fuel for continued campaigning, when it has been repeatedly demonstrated that Clinton chances of overtaking Obama in the all-important delegate count close to nil?

And secondly, how is it that she claims the mantle of "most electable Democrat" when she can't even secure the nomination of her own party (much less a convincing one) given that she has perhaps the most unfair advantage of any candidate in Democratic history- Bill Clinton, the only full two-term Democratic president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt?

What's almost laughable about Clinton's justification of her prolonged candidacy is that Clinton knows that her one and only shot at winning the nomination is to talk the superdelegates into overturning the will of the Democratic majority and give it to her. And yet, her meaningless, delay-the-inevitable victory in Pennsylvania has apparently done little to convince the party leaders that she's the best candidate for the general election: first thing this morning, the Democratic Governor of Oklahoma, a state Clinton won, endorsed Obama.

It's important to keep Clinton's victory in the most honest perspective, especially because the media has been so susceptible buying into the hysteria in the past. Clinton was hailed as the "comeback kid...again" after her victory in the Texas Primary. But if you look back over the polling data, you'll see that Clinton squandered double-digit leads as late as two weeks before the contest, only to eke out a win by just about 100,000 votes. That's not a comeback- that's barely holding onto your hat and riding out the early lead you jumped out to because everyone knew who you were, while the rest of the country was still trying to find out who this Barack Obama guy really was. She was suppose to win Texas. But the aggregate effect of her victory there- and particularly her underdog, come-from-behind status (whether real or fabricated)- was immeasurable. Her nationwide ratings took a significant jump. And perhaps more importantly, so did her numbers in Pennsylvania.

We're likely to see the same thing in Indiana. Obama will cruise through North Carolina, but as he's won every single surrounding state, it's unlikely his victory will be met with the same fanfare as Clinton's. But as time wears on, Obama will probably close the gap in Indiana, and when Clinton wins it (like she's suppose to), she'll get a ridiculous number of undeserved pats on the back. And it will go on like that until the convention, with Obama piling up delegates as Clinton claims "important" victories, even as she begins to drop further and further behind not only in the delegate race, but in the popular vote as well.

This is what distorts things for the American people. I don't think that most people know that speaking from the standpoint of statistical probability, she's destined to lose. So they see no problem with her continuing her quixotic race toward the White House. She's winning these huge victories, so why shouldn't she stay in the fight? Right?

In the end, Barack Obama will reach the finish line before Hillary Clinton does, and it will take an act of God (or some audacious party leaders) to hand her the trophy if she does. But in the meantime, let's measure each contest for what it is, and not blow a victory that does little to change the overall status of the race out of proportion.