Sometimes we MSMers get carried away.

Take Tuesday, for example. When the Pennsylvania returns rolled in around 9:15 p.m. and the networks crowned Hillary Clinton the winner, it took what seemed like only a few seconds for the storyline to set in: the former First Lady has resurrected her campaign with yet another death-defying, double-digit victory in a big industrial state--all thanks to white, working-class voters, whose reluctance to back Obama bodes ill for his chances in the general election (and therefore makes Clinton's electability argument easier for superdelegates to swallow). 

There is, of course, some truth to that narrative. Clinton won. Obama lost. And she crushed him 66-33 among whites who earn less than $50,000 a year. But the headlines were also incredibly simplistic--and at least as reflective of the media's insatiable appetite for plot twists as, you know, reality. (That's what happens after Chris Matthews is forced to endure seven weeks without a primary to slobber over cover.) Now that we've all had some time to settle down, though, I'd thought it'd be helpful to affix two necessary asterisks to the (increasingly tall) tale of the Pennsylvania primary:

*Double-digits: Earlier this month, omnipotent CW-arbiter Mark Halperin wrote that the number one thing Hillary Clinton had to do in Pennsylvania was "win the popular vote by more than 10.5%." If not, he added, "the media will say she didn’t beat expectations (and her Ohio margin)." Pretty soon, every Beltway blogger and bloviator was echoing his prediction: she needs to win by 10 points, they said; anything short of double-digits = disappointment. Although somewhat arbitrary, this bar seemed reasonable enough. After all, Clinton arrived in Pennsylvania with significant demographic advantages and a 20-percent head start in the polls; failing to at least match her Ohio performance could only be considered a letdown. But a funny thing happened after the polls closed on Tuesday. Around 8:00, every political correspondent in the country got a glimpse at early exits that either showed Clinton beating Obama by a mere four points--or Obama leading Clinton. But as the returns rolled in, Clinton's lead widened, and by midnight, she was up by a "staggering" 10 percent with 95 percent of the votes counted. Their expectations lowered by inaccurate exit polls, the Tim Russerts of the world went to sleep Tuesday with the storyline set: "Obama had Hillary on the ropes and she fought him off with pure grit and determination. Impressive! She's back!" Hence the headlines.

The only problem: now that 100 percent of precincts have reported, it appears Clinton won Pennsylvania by 9.3 percent. In other words, no double-digits. She performed exactly as everyone expected--not better (and perhaps slightly worse, especially when compared to Ohio). The difference between 10 percent and 9.3 percent is marginal, of course, and hardly earth-shattering in any actual electoral sense. But in terms of storyline, this kind of thing makes a big difference. Without exit polls to create the artificial impression of an Election Night nailbiter--and without that incomplete 10-point margin at bedtime to justify the "double-digit" analysis--Russert, Matthews and the rest of the CW crowd would've reacted with yawns rather than hype.

P.S. Also important to note: in Pennsylvania, Clinton's impressive 33 percent margin among blue-collar whites was actually smaller than her margin among the same voters in Ohio (41 percent). It's hardly Obama's best demographic--but despite the sudden flood of "arugula gap" coverage, there's nothing in the Keystone State returns to suggest that Archie Bunker types like him any less than they did eight weeks ago. Quite the contrary, in fact.

*Closed primary: Lost amid all the furrowed-brow coverage of Obama's good-ol' boy deficit--and speculation about what it might mean come November--is the fact that Pennsylvania was a closed primary. In other words, only Democrats could vote. That's not to discount Clinton's victory; her strength relative to Obama among core Democrats is nothing to scoff at. But in terms of a) media coverage and b) the electability question, it's useful to dig a little deeper here. Based on my calculations--which I've extrapolated from Pennsylvania's 2004 election returns--about 375,000 Independents and crossover Republicans would've voted in the Keystone State primary had they been allowed. And if Obama matched his typical margin among these voters (about 25 percent), he would've emerged with nearly 100,000 additional votes, slashing Clinton's victory from nine percent to five--and generating a flurry of "Clinton fails to meet expectations" stories in the process.

Of course, what's past is past. But the indie issue is also critical because it undercuts Clinton's claim, buttressed by the Pennsylvania results, that Obama can't win in the general election. The New York senator's blue-collar supporters are Democrats; Obama's independents and Republicans are, by definition, not. The two constituencies are roughly equal in size. The question then becomes: does Obama, as a Democrat, stand a better chance of winning over Clinton's blue-collar Democrats in November than the (still polarizing) Clinton stands of winning over his crossover voters? I suspect that the answer is yes--especially against John McCain. In other words, Pennsylvania proved nothing about Obama's electability that an open primary wouldn't have disproved--and the general election is essentially an open primary. As a key congressional Democrat (and superdelegate) told the Politico this morning, “Yes, he doesn’t do really well with a big part of the Democratic base, but she doesn’t do well with independents, who will be critical to success in November.”

You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming.