Not only did the blogosphere not stand still during my absence, but apparently, neither did the world. There's a major election in Wisconsin today and results ought to start trickling in soon.

I enjoyed Ann Althouse's explanation of why she's voting for Obama.

I haven't liked [Hillary Clinton], but I pictured myself voting for her anyway -- back when she was inevitable. But Obama's growing power allowed me to cast off my resignation. And along with his growing power -- after that win in Iowa -- came her phony emotional ploys, the garish emergence of Bill Clinton, and the racial insinuations from the Clinton campaign. That drove a wedge into my neutrality, and my opinion broke for Obama.

My evolution (to the extent you can call it that) is a bit different. I proceeded from the assumption that Hillary was, is, and always has been inevitable. More than anything I want to avoid returning the Clintons to the White House, which makes me an ABC (Anyone But Clinton) man. This is not to say that I am enamored with Obama, and although I find his attitude refreshing and his oratory inspiring, I find his politics socialistic, and his pacifist approach abhorrent. However, he seems more conservative economically than Hillary, which is good.

But simply because he's not Hillary -- that's enough reason for me to support him as the Democratic nominee. (Were I in Wisconsin and allowed to vote for a Democrat, I'll pull his lever in a heartbeat.)

It's been a bit of a shocker to watch Hillary come so close to losing, but it has to be remembered that the Clinton machine holds enormous power, and can influence the way the election proceeds enormously. I still can't believe they're going to sit there and let Obama win. I am doubtful that even if he wins every race from tonight on that he'll ever have the number of actual delegates it will take to win. And the Clintons will fight like hell to stop him.

So I'll be watching tonight's results avidly.

(As Glenn points out, fortunately Stephen Green will be drunkblogging the results. These things are worth drinking over.)

MORE (9:11 p.m.): McCain won, and is giving a good speech. CNN says Obama leads Clinton.

MORE: (10:10 p.m.): Both CNN and Fox called it for Obama some time ago, and I watched Hillary, who seemed tired and who is starting to show signs that she's a bit lacking in confidence. Her speech was interrupted by Obama's on both CNN and Fox, and I'm still listening to Obama in Houston. He's a crowd pleaser, but I think he's going on too long, and may be getting a bit repetitive.

MORE: Britt Hume called the Obama speech "the longest victory speech we've heard this season... maybe the longest speech ever."

45 minutes.

FWIW, I don't think his reference to McCain as the candidate of yesterday worked very well. I don't think Iraq is going to be a winner for the Dems that he thinks it is.

MORE: Stephen Green looks at the inherently unstable nature of the so-called "pledged" delegates, and sees Hillary's advantage:

....who has the most power to bribe, threaten or cajole pledged-but-not-really-pledged delegates? If you guessed the junior senator from New York who also happens to be the spouse of a rich ex-president," then you might just get promised the Veep spot on the first female-led presidential ticket.

And after a detailed analysis, Chris Bowers thinks it will all come down to Pennsylvania -- which "appears to be a potentially decisive, and inevitable, showdown." (Via Glenn Reynolds.)

While Pennsylvania is normally considered an "utterly irrelevant" state in the primary elections, on February 6, Dick Polman predicted that Pennsylvania could become the pivotal state:

....if Ohio and Texas don't bring clarity . . . dare we suggest that Pennsylvania, six weeks later on April 22, could actually become the pivotal state? Pennsylvania would be ripe for a little attention. It has been 16 years since Democrats cast a meaningful primary vote, and even 1992 was a low-turnout affair dominated by the new kid on the block, Bill Clinton.

....the only way she can win the nomination is by flexing some old-school muscle, thereby infuriating millions of grassroots Democrats who have long assumed that the stench of backroom deal-making had dissipated decades ago.

Bear in mind that Polman wrote it before tonight's results.

Hillary could theoretically still win -- and "the party's White House prospects could die in the process."