There is nothing left but strained, over-the-top shenanigans in the service of pulling off a mathematically impossible fantasy.
That, or a polite, reasoned withdrawal in the interest of faits accomplis and party unity, leaving her, in eight years, still nearly four years younger than the current Republican nominee.
But let's do go with the shenanigans, right? Pointless, pathetic and divisive they may be, but an epic temper tantrum on the national stage is so personally cathartic.
Is that what "35 years of experience" have taught Hillary Clinton?
At long last, that would seem to be the case. For as the New York Times this morning characterized last night's tenth successive disaster rally, "Mrs. Clinton wasted no time in signaling that she would now take a tougher line against Mr. Obama."
Which answered, as well, Keith Olbermann's sadly less than whimsical questions to assorted pundits last evening: If it turns out that her recent attacks against Obama didn't work, will we see more of them? And if they really didn't work, will we see a lot more of them?
I suppose if the attacks had some meat on their bones -- if, that is, the Clinton camp had some actual evidence of a malignancy in internal opposition that the party faithful were about to foolishly embrace if not stopped in the nick of time -- then one could understand the desperate, down-to-the-wire devilishness of it all.
But Obama's borrowing of a few lines from a gubernatorial friend? This is the scurrilous proof, as Hillary's disinformation minister put it, that "there are fundamental problems with [his] campaign"? Fundamental?
Beware, good citizens of the Republic. There are pols out there actually willing to quote political pals without attribution. Oh, how this scourge of American democracy snakes among us, incomparable in its civic debauchery -- yet, bemoans the Clinton camp, we're so blind.
Asked Monday what effect her linguistic revelations might have on Wisconsin's electorate, Hillary said she did not know: "I leave that to all of you to figure out," with "you," presumably, meaning those sinister members of the punditocracy. But Wisconsin's electorate did it for them.
They figured out that it didn't mean squat.
This may seem like I'm wandering off into inconsequentials and irrelevancies -- wandering off into just plain silliness. But that, I'm sorry to say on Hillary's behalf, is essentially what her campaign now represents.
She can now stay mired in the silliness and do the party a whole lot of damage, or she can crawl out of it and do the party and herself a whole lot of good.
She can, that is, simply withdraw now. The test of Wisconsin was whether Obama would continue taking occupation of virtually every demographic territory once so confidently held by Mrs. Clinton. He did, and he did it decisively.
Since Iowa he alone has steadily mounted an inclusive campaign that can win, an observation reflected in opinions from yesterday's exit-polled: "Obama would be more likely than Mrs. Clinton, by 63 percent to 37 percent, to defeat the Republican nominee in the fall." This, despite his having quoted a friend without attribution. Imagine that.
It's over, Hillary. If you must, leave Bill and go cohabitate with Mike Huckabee and do your hoping for miracles with him. But in reality you'll immensely please God and country only by getting off the national stage and letting the general campaign commence, for every day counts when the opposing army is already rolling.
In eight years you'll be thankful you did, because millions will be thankful you did.
But for now, Hillary, it's over. And the only "inevitability" left is in making it official.