Update: From Larry Eichel of the Philadelphia Inquirer  

(Clinton's) 17-point loss in Wisconsin was a huge development, said Dante Scala, a political scientist from the University of New Hampshire.

Until Wisconsin, he said, Clinton had won primaries wherever her base of working-class women, seniors and Hispanics was inherently stronger than Obama's coalition of young people, blacks and upscale progressives.

"To use a tennis analogy, both candidates had been holding serve," Scala said during a talk at Villanova University last week. "Wisconsin was a breaking of serve." …

There's also the generational factor. "Maybe people don't want another baby boomer, another Clinton or Bush," said Doug Hansmann, a Clinton supporter from Madison, Wis. "The irony is that of the two Clintons and two Bushes, I think she's the best of the bunch."

'Setting the stage, poised for a knockout ... a fading, faltering, broken Hillary Clinton campaign': Everyone has read the ledes reporting on Barack Obama’s landslide win in Wisconsin Tuesday.

One aspect has been overlooked: In a critical dimension, it’s not Clinton or Obama who won or lost.

The people spoke and thus won. And one fact that bears noting is that Hillary Clinton supporters are more idealistic than she is.

In speaking to Clinton supporters the last week, the take-away is that Hillary has the requisite mettle and wisdom to successfully lead this country to social justice.

But Hillary did not speak for these people in her relentlessly negative (and false) ads and mailers that sought merely to stave off the 17-point defeat that she suffered here.

Hillary found out just how repugnant the politics of fear and distortion is among voters, including many of her supporters, who see the democratic process as a means of their deciding their government's policies.

Does Hillary believe that her supporters wish her campaign to assassinate Obama’s character, abilities and commitment? Noone I know was consulted.