When I got up this morning, today's much-anticipated Philadelphia Inquirer endorsement was available only online.

Well, for me, at least. And for my neighbors. I looked around, and no, they didn't just miss my driveway; there were no Inquirers to be found anywhere. Occasionally I'll have a missed delivery problem, but no papers anywhere is unusual. That it happened on Election Day raised my antennae a bit.

So naturally, I wondered who the Inquirer endorsed.

Obama:

The 46-year-old Obama offers the better chance of rising above the partisan rancor in Washington to achieve bipartisan goals. After eight years of George W. Bush's my-way-or-the-highway rule, Obama could become the uniter that Bush never was. His campaign has attracted people of all backgrounds and political persuasions.

Throughout his career as a community organizer and state legislator and senator, Obama has pursued justice for working-class people. The recent charge that he's an elitist doesn't wash, in light of his background and his life's work.

Opponents argue that Obama isn't ready to be president. Compared with Clinton and Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Obama has the least amount of Washington experience. But that is likely one reason he's winning over so many voters. People crave change.

And Obama has demonstrated the resilience to bounce back from challenges in this long campaign. His speech in Philadelphia on race relations quelled the immediate political furor over his former pastor's anti-white rhetoric.

But Obama's address did more than serve his own political needs. It called on blacks and whites to consider each other's legitimate motives, and to move beyond conflicting perspectives. Turning a tempest into an opportunity for national reflection and action is a sign of leadership.

The Inquirer goes on to criticize Obama for Bittergate:

Unfortunately, Obama followed up that memorable speech with a gaffe about "bitter" small-town Pennsylvanians clinging to religion and guns. He still hasn't explained adequately what he really meant. For someone whose eloquence usually seems effortless, it was an unforced blunder that may have cost him the chance to put away Clinton here and now.

Today's Inquirer, of course, slams Hillary:

Clinton, 60, like Obama, wants to end the war in Iraq as soon as possible. Her plan for universal health care would mandate coverage for everyone; his plan doesn't go quite that far. But the policy differences between them are few. For example, both aim to roll back the Bush tax cuts for top wage-earners.

A second Clinton presidency could be as polarizing as the first one. She hasn't displayed often enough an ability to connect with voters. And her infamous Bosnia-sniper story, while overblown, did highlight the public's mistrust of her truthfulness.

Republican voters - those who haven't switched parties this spring - will find three names on the presidential ballot. But the GOP race is effectively over. JOHN McCAIN, 71, who received our endorsement in January, is the presumptive nominee. Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas abandoned his effort weeks ago, and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas is carrying on his obscure campaign for reasons known chiefly to him.

Obscure is definitely the word for the Ron Paul campaign, because I've seen no signs of it (at least, in my neighborhood).

Maybe it's, like, a double-secret, stealth campaign. With invisible canvassing and invisible leaflets. And maybe his voters are voting in secret polling places, known only to them. (Those who know don't tell, and those who tell don't know! Shhh!)

But frankly, the Hillary campaign is not doing the world's greatest job of canvassing, mailing or leafleting. I have received two leaflets from Obama in the mail, and I have been visited by two Obama campaign workers. One of them even braved Coco's anti-campaign worker intimidation tactics and placed this beautiful, color-coordinated hanger on the door latch:

Nothing from the Clinton campaign.

Anyway, my Inquirer endorsement not in hand, I finally arrived at the polls. While there were at least two Obama signs in front of the building, I didn't see any from Hillary.

It was crowded, and I had to stand in line.

(Faces blurred to respect privacy.)

The situation seemed aggravated by a malfunctioning voting machine, as the poll worker shut it down while someone with electronic gadgetry screwed around with it. And meanwhile the poll worker was on the cell phone (around 7:25 a.m.) reporting something.

No idea what the problem was, but finally they let the voters use it again.

I returned a little after 8:00 a.m., and the Inquirer was sitting there, as were the neighbors' Inquirers. It just arrived too late for most of the commuter voter crowd, that's all. Probably nothing except a coincidence, but the paper almost always arrives well before 6:00 a.m., and usually before 5:00.

Speaking of coincidences, today is Earth Day, and Lenin's birthday.

So what would Lenin do? What is to be done?

Who would he endorse? Who would he vote for?

(The answers to those last two questions might not be the same. I'm thinking that Lenin's vote would depend on whether ideology is placed ahead of tactics, a decision which might be tactical, but still ultimately ideological. These things are complicated, but I'm thinking Lenin would probably vote for Hillary.)

MORE: For continuously updated coverage on the Pennsylvania vote (as well as regular reports from Bill Bradley and Vodkapundit's Stephen Green), be sure to visit this PJM link regularly.

UPDATE: Speaking of unusual occurences, what's with all this sudden UFO activity in multiple states?

Are the aliens making an Earth Day statement?

Or is it a last minute alien endorsement of Dennis Kucinich?