There's some startling news coming out of the Nevada caucuses: accusations of cheating and voter suppression from the Clinton campaign. There's way too much to quote, so go take a look at the linked Daily Kos diary.

Hillary Clinton won today's caucus by a roughly 51-46-4 margin over Barack Obama and John Edwards.

If such accusations are true, it's just another strange happening in a hotly-contested campaign. And it's simply despicable. And, you know what, despite all the Clinton partisans arguing otherwise in the DK diary comments, I'm inclined to believe the author and just don't know what to think.

Am I the only one who thinks caucuses are an odd way of selecting a nominee? Give me an old-fashioned primary any day of the week, please! Can someone give me a decent argument for a caucus? The ironic thing for me is that, after all is said and done, the delegates are still even for Clinton and Obama. This is going to carry on for some time.

PS: South Carolina polls are about the close for the GOP. How can Mitt Romney do, considering his NV win? Will Huckabee's magical ride end here? Can Ron Paul hold on to finish 2nd in NV? Is Fred Thompson even awake? Who knows!

Update: David Plouffe, campaign manager to Barack Obama, has released a statement on the caucus, claiming mass irregularities. For what it's worth, people on the Clinton side are dismissing the accusations as just that and as "crocodile tears" (look in the linked comments).