The most interesting read of the day, for me anyway, was Michelle Cottle's collection of comments from inside the Hillary camp, citing the reasons why Clinton failed to secure the nomination.
The list is revealing on many levels – it should and will be a lesson to political science majors for years to come.
A few things about the article I find interesting...
...less realistic reasons given, which point to some staffers not even getting in hindsight why they failed:

I just think they should have really gone after [Obama] back in the summer and in the fall. (i.e. earlier and harder than they did)

...some comments that show a similarity to Neo-Con and Machiavellian thinking :

...it spoke to the character issue: The sense that she will say anything and do anything to get elected.

There was financial mismanagement bordering on fraud.

...polling memos that cherry-picked only positive polls when we were up and ignored polling when we were down.

Notoriously bad managers, they filled key posts with newcomers loyal to them but unknown to and unfamiliar with the candidate...

...they didn't know what they didn't know and were too arrogant to ask...

...and fundamental flaws:

There were so many consultants, instead of full-time staff.... too many people that had too much else going on on the side.

Running as an incumbent, as the inevitable candidate... in a time when the country is really hungry for change.

Making our chief strategist our one and only pollster. 

Her people spent all of 2008 making lists blaming each other (but never themselves) rather than lists of solutions.

So just about every problem you could conjure occurred. But I would say there were significant problems that possibly only an outsider can see.  Here's my list:
1. Obama should never have been attacked.  Thinking that going on every offensive, and calling Obama her "opponent" for months and months is a good idea is just flawed thinking for a primary.  I'm no formal student of the craft, but even I know that attacks in campaigns do two things: A. they bring attention to your opponent, and B. they make you both look bad.  Negative campaigning from the front lines is a desperate battle – a scorched earth tactic that claws for a marginal victory, not the right choice of the "inevitable" candidate.I really think she could have copied Barack's hopeful message, agreed with him on everything, and beat him.  She did for a while, but in the end, fear took over, and, intimidated by his poise and position, the camp fell back on an attack mode. 
2. Her public image was atrociously false.  That she thought she had to be anything but her authentic self to win over Democrats was, in my opinion, her most visible blunder. So many of us wanted to like her, but as she continued to shapeshift, laugh inappropriately, and pander shamelessly, she lost those of us who just wanted Hillary. This is not just her failure, but I believe it's the failure of her generation, and the biggest difference between the old and the upcoming new wave of politics.  We'll see more politicians rise to the top through integrity and authenticity, as the unyielding, ever-national media coverage, hungry for gaffes and misstatements, continues to leave no room for liars, bigots, and hypocrites. National is the new Local.  Ask Macaca.
3. Mark Penn.  Now, I know this is a reason insiders agree on, but here's what I saw: a sweaty, ungroomed, fat pig of a man, with a whiny voice and combover, as The frontman spokesperson in those post-debate interviews.  Anyone who would give (well, promise, anyway) $5 million to such an obvious mess of a human being (just on appearances alone!) lacks considerable judgment.  The rest is said by her staffers.
4. Hillary never learned to speak to a crowd.  With a challenger like Obama, you gotta learn how to command a crowd.  She thought that monotone yelling into a microphone was the way to rouse the masses.  No – it's off-putting, unprofessional, and yes, SHRILL.  She should have been in training for crowds, and had people around her tell her she needed training.  
5. She thought that being a woman was enough...  and many of her strongest supporters still do.  But there are a great number of men and women, who pine for more women in power positions, and support all kinds of equal rights, who feel she is not the right person to be president.  She could have won them over.  Instead, she alienated these would-be supporters with cheap cries of victimhood, and uninspired rhetoric that simply drew attention to her gender.  Her words had little to get behind, because ultimately she is not a very likeable person, and she never saw that or endeavored to correct it. 
6. she doesn't know when she's beaten.  This is evident in her continuation in the race beyond all logic, but this flaw runs deeper and more fundamental.  Like a deer in the headlights, she pounds forward with inappropriate message. Her style is that of a steamroller – forge ahead at all costs.  It works when people are behind you, but when you're wrong it betrays a big character flaw: unconsciousness, or the inability to improvise, or to see a problem and right the ship.I had a sense that in all debates and interviews, her message was well-memorized.  Her answers were similar to a "choose your own adventure" book, where if question 5f is asked, respond with answer 2c.  She lacks Obama's (very rare, for a politician) ability to have a loose agenda in mind, backed by a strong self-confidence, to see him through an interview or debate.  We could all see him get better in the debates, too. That reveals a conscious effort to see one's self and to then improve that Hillary still does not possess.
In summary, it was just a disaster.  How fascinating. Obama's success and Hillary's failure are indicative of the same principle:  The New replacing the The Old ways in U.S. politics.  These are exciting times, to see such a sea change nationally, and to be there at the beginning of something that will shape the future quite positively.  
Well, thanks for reading.  I had fun writing this up.