Yes, we all know that Sen. Clinton is touting her recent win in West Virginia as a sign that she’s still alive. But the consensus in most media outlets is that this is a hollow victory, to say the least, and that it doesn’t mean much.

A good round-up of this “yeah, that’s nice” perspective can be found on U.S. News and World Report’s campaign blog:

The New York Times reports in a front page story that Clinton won a “strong” victory over Obama, but with Obama “still solidly ahead of Mrs. Clinton in the delegate fight, the West Virginia results are unlikely to adversely affect Mr. Obama’s chances of winning the nomination.” The Washington Post reports on its front page that Clinton “routed” Obama, which “added fresh ammunition to her claim that she is better positioned than Obama to capture critical swing states in November.” However, the win “may have come too late to have a significant impact on the trajectory of a nomination battle.”

But West Virginia’s case does reveal real weaknesses in Obama’s campaign, as Maureen Dowd points out in her latest column:

Interviews with West Virginians leaving the polls showed some profound weaknesses that could haunt the Illinois senator in the fall. More than half said they would be dissatisfied if Obama was the nominee. Half believe he shares the views of the Rev. Wright, and more than half said he does not share their values. More than half also said that he is not honest and trustworthy. Just under half of the Clinton voters said they would not support Obama in the fall.

Obama may have started the primary season with an inspiring win in 94-percent-white Iowa, but he is winding it up with a resounding loss in 94-percent-white West Virginia.

The key wording here is “believe he shares the views of.” Obama must work harder at reinventing himself, or, rather presenting his life story. Younger people really enjoy hearing about his globe-trotting childhood, but he must remind people that he is first and foremost from the U.S., and from very humble origins, for that matter. In this regard, he’ll be in a better position than John F. Kennedy, the last Democrat who had a truly hard time winning over voters in West Virginia. Kennedy had to contend with very strong anti-Catholic feelings.

Charlie Peters, the legendary former editor of the liberal Washington Monthly who ran Jack Kennedy’s campaign in Kanawha County, W. Va., said Obama should study how J.F.K. managed to win there despite raging anti-Catholicism.

“The point of West Virginia in 1960 is that you can change attitudes,” Peters, an Obama supporter, said on Tuesday evening. “But if you don’t act to change them, he could lose West Virginia and I think he could lose the country.

“He has to change those perceptions of the people who think he could actually agree with the Rev. Wright.”