Well, it appears that we have more to worry about than just what was shown on Machinist's table of the states with the highest chance of having votes lost, miscounted, or not even tallied at all.

At one California polling site, the electoral inspector had to send voters to other polling stations because neither the machines nor the ink that goes into them had arrived in time for today's Super Tuesday festivities. They ended up accepting hand-marked ballots, but that slowed down the voting process, and on a workday, people want to get in, vote, and get out.

We all knew this day was coming. So, what, they just forgot to send the polling equipment in? The article didn't say, but I think it would be interesting to find out what neighborhood this happened in--was it a neighborhood composed primarily of people of color? Was it a neighborhood in a lower socioeconomic bracket? Or was it just some random neighborhood, in which case my little conspiracy spidey-sense will shut up.

That's not the end of the story, though. In Virginia, hundreds upon hundreds of people showed up at polling centers today, only to find them closed. Their primaries aren't until next Tuesday. Who knows how many people were turned away today, and out of sheer frustration, won't show up again next week?

More and more returns are coming in, and it seems like the race is still pretty much anyone's to win.

And I still don't know who I'd rather have take the nomination. I'm registered to vote in Michigan, where the choices in the Dem primary were between Clinton and anyone else, due to candidates dropping out of the race since we had no delegates (Thanks for moving the primary up against the wishes of the DNC, Michigan. Thanks.)

And so here is my problem. All these weeks of playing up identity politics, calling out feminists for not wanting to vote for Clinton, suggesting that blacks had a duty to vote for Obama, and...and... and... has lessened my faith in the results of this primary.

If Clinton gets the nomination, did she do so because she is truly the best on the issues, and the voters have faith that she can move the country in a positive direction? Or is it because racism played that tangible a part in the voters' choices? Is it because women felt required to do so, lest they be "bad" feminists or women? Or is it because people will take Hillary just to get Bill?

If Obama wins, similar questions come into play. Was sexism the reason Clinton didn't get the nomination, or is it because Obama has the best plans for the country? Is it because the voters don't want to see the same two families dominating American politics for over 20 years?

I'm a firm believer in voting on the issues, and it saddens me to know that no matter what way tonight turns out, I'll worry that identity politics shaped the outcome of the Democratic primaries.

Both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have outspent their Republican rivals three times over in the past two weeks alone. The total amount spent by candidates and special interest groups on advertising is over $169 million, which is an all-time record.

Okay, I totally get that to win, and to change things the way you think they should be changed, there needs to be recognition. But with the rising costs of campaigning, entrance to the political arena is becoming increasingly more difficult. We are all told growing up that any of us could be president someday, but with the prohibitive costs of running for an office, any office, that is not true. 

We've heard increasing rhetoric about the change lately, and that's great, but what about all the ideas for change people have that don't have the means to run for office? As of now, it's not something that can be changed, but it's something to think about.    

U.S. Democratic Party voters in Indonesia have just given Barack Obama a win over Senator Clinton.

Results have not been officially verified yet, but out of approximately 100 votes cast, 75 went to Obama.

Coincidentally (or maybe not), Obama moved to Indonesia when he was six years old.

Democrats living overseas have until February 12th to cast their votes. They can send 22 delegates to the convention, and have 11 votes.

...and the suspense builds!

With all these added celebrity endorsements surfacing in the past few hours, I think it's sure worth taking a look at what's being said.

For instance, rapper 50 Cent supported Senator Clinton in Rap Up magazine last year, suggesting that it would be nice to have her be president because not only would she do a good job, it would be "a way for us to have Bill Clinton be president again."

Uh, yuck? How about we just base our votes on the merit of the individual running, instead of voting for the woman candidate so we can get her husband back in the White House? I'm quite sure that Senator Clinton is an intelligent woman, perfectly capable of being in the White House on her own talent and ability, and not "Oh, we'll take her if we can get her husband, too."

On Monday, Bill O'Reilly (I know, I know) showed footage of 50 Cent adding that he has nothing against Barack Obama but doesn't think that America is "ready" for a black president, remarking "I think they might kill him."

So it really does come down to race and gender, huh? Nice to know we care about the issues, people.

Oh, voting machines. After the Florida fiasco back in 2000, it would be great to know that all voting systems had been improved and were now nearly failproof.

Uh, not so.

Machinist, a website devoted to tech news and blogging, has a table showing the riskiest voting machines being used today. While it’s certainly possible that nothing goes wrong, the possibility of disenfranchising voters is still there.

This isn’t an election people are taking lightly--this is monumental and historical, and people have spent agonizing hours deciding which candidate is receiving their vote. Let’s hope they don’t use any of these machines that have a decent chance of messing up, and while we’re on the subject, let’s hope that their state’s primaries aren’t after today – there’s not really much incentive to vote in primaries after the nominee is all but guaranteed post-Super Tuesday.

This is something that feminists should be concerned about – disenfranchisement of voters, whether through machine failure or a poorly scheduled primary season, is not beneficial to anyone who cares about what goes on in this country.

So it looks like one of Senator Clinton's top advisor suggested that Obama would make a great running mate should she win the nomination (via the CNN Political Ticker). What would a Clinton/Obama ticket look like? What would it do?

Even now, as a 21-year-old woman who has almost completed her Bachelors degree in Women's Studies, my mind is blown. I've followed presidential politics since '92 (when I decided that Bill Clinton was way cuter than George Bush, and that's why I would vote for him in the elementary school mock-elections) and still am just thrilled to see that the two most viable contenders for the Democratic nomination are not white dudes. Thrilled. Obviously, one of these two individuals will get the nomination. I can't wait to see if they will pick one another for a running mate, or if they will go a bit more traditional (John Edwards?) to pull in moderate voters who may not be so crazy about breaking the mold completely.

Ever since Edwards dropped out of the race, a lot has been said about the feminist vote. We have the NY chapter of NOW telling us that the obvious feminist choice is Clinton, and anyone who suggests differently (even Senator Kennedy!) is betraying "us."

Yeah, but who's "us"? The loads and loads of news I have read or watched suggesting that a vote for Obama is a vote against feminism is irritating. To be honest, I don't even know which candidate I prefer yet, but telling me that I need to vote a certain way, based on certain demographic characteristics just to be a "good feminist" is a sure-fire way to alienate me. Sorry, I prefer to vote based on issues that are important to me, such as reproductive health, not on genitalia.