When the winner is Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Time was, you won an election and the news media pronounced you the winner. No more. This time, the media announced that you had to beat the point spread -- a point spread determined by, well, the media.

"If Clinton wins by more than 10 points," decreed CNN's Bill Schneider, "her campaign will have new momentum and she will soldier on."

At least 10 points, said Politico's Ken Vogel. "Hillary Clinton needs to win by double digits," he proposed.

"At least 10 percentage points," the Los Angeles Times concurred, citing unnamed superdelegates.

Foreigners wanted in on the game. Britain's Guardian newspaper said Clinton "needs to win by a margin of 10 percent or more."

Dan Balz, The Washington Post's magnanimous chief political writer, suggested alternatives. "Some say Clinton needs to win by 10 points," he wrote. "Others say eight points. Some say ... anything over five points would be a respectable victory."

"More than five points," suggested Jennifer Duffy of the Cook Political Report.

It fell to CNN's Wolf Blitzer to seek an end to the madness. "A win is a win, isn't it?" he asked.

"Not necessarily," replied GOP strategist John Feehery. "I think she's got to blow him out."

Clearly, setting the spread was not a science -- but there was some justification for it. Before Tuesday, Clinton trailed Barack Obama in the popular vote, delegates won and states won -- and it will be difficult for her to persuade the party's superdelegates to make her the Democratic presidential nominee if she can't win one of those categories.

Even the easiest of those hurdles, a deficit of 800,000 in the popular vote, couldn't be erased without lopsided wins in Pennsylvania and the remaining primary states. That left commentators free to decide just how lopsided the win had to be.

Bill Hemmer at Fox News, hardly known for Clinton sympathies, offered that "she needs to win by a landslide in order to have a chance."

Argued MSNBC's Joe Scarborough: "She needs to win by 10 percentage points."

The New York Daily News quoted Democratic consultant Peter Fenn as saying Clinton needs "blowout numbers."

The Boston Globe left itself some wiggle room, saying: "She must beat Barack Obama by a large enough margin to convince party leaders that she would be the stronger nominee."

Working the angles

The candidates tried to massage the spread. "I'm not predicting a win, I'm predicting it's going to be close and that we are going to do a lot better than people expect," Obama ventured on Tuesday.

The Clinton campaign appealed to abolish the spread. "I object to the notion that we need to achieve a certain standard of victory other than victory," aide Howard Wolfson maintained.

Objection overruled. The Obama team began Tuesday morning with an e-mailed memo to "interested parties." It pointed out that, in recent polls, "she led by as much as 25 points." And it quoted the Philadelphia Inquirer saying she needs to "take the state big, perhaps by double digits."

The Clinton campaign retaliated by circulating a blog posting by ABC News' Jake Tapper asking: "What's so crazy about the idea that the Democratic front-runner -- flush with cash and outspending Clinton 3-to-1, running against a candidate with such high unfavorable ratings -- should be able to win a blue state primary?" The posting concluded: "The Obama campaign may likely spin tonight's outcome as a W for him as long as she doesn't win by 25 points. I, for one, ain't buying it."

That was followed by a Clinton memo, also to "interested parties," asking the same question. "Shouldn't he be the one expected to win tonight?" Yet another bulletin followed from the Clinton team, this one an e-mailed link to a spreadsheet that had leaked from the Obama campaign: It anticipated a five-point margin in Pennsylvania.

Obama, making a stop in South Philadelphia on Tuesday, briefly forgot his part in the spread game. "A win is 50 plus one," he said. "So if Senator Clinton gets over 50 percent, she's won the state and, you know, I don't try to pretend that I enjoy getting 45 percent and that's a moral victory -- we've lost the state." CNN posted those accurate but ill-advised sentiments -- and the Clinton campaign quickly circulated a link to the CNN posting.

Late in the afternoon, the early round of exit polls came in: A four-point Clinton advantage. By any other standard, that would presage a win. But by the standards of the spread, it hinted at crushing defeat.

Urgent action was required. Clinton campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe and booster Lanny Davis left the Park Hyatt and took their case to the Fox News camera near a bus stop on Broad Street. How big a win does Clinton need? "A win is a win," McAuliffe decreed.