Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Nebraskans Overwhelm Caucus Capacity

Lots of enthusiasm as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton compete in Nebraska. And this is just one example: "Overrun by crowds, caucus organizers at Monroe Middle School declared a state of emergency."

A gripping account of the chaos from the Omaha World-Herald can be found here.

By Post Editor  |  February 9, 2008; 1:24 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Romney and the Gramm-o-meter
Next: Huckabee Wins Kansas Caucus


CHANDROTH44, what you wrote speaks for me and and a rising number of voters. Thank you.

Posted by: jhbyer | February 9, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Obama's going to run into a brick wall called COCAINE in the general election.

Republicans will never let him forget it.

Neither will Democrats after he loses us the whitehouse!!!

We could have had 16 years with Clinton/Obama.

Now every Clinton supporter that I know of is sick of Obama and his supporters.

Obama is an empty suit.

Millions will suffer because of his incompetence and ego, just like they did with Bush.

When will it stop? When we elect people based on their platforms, not just how charming they are.

You know what you call someone like Obama?


Mske sure you know what your buying before you sign on the dotted line!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 9, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

cam 8 -- are you serious? an obama web site written by obama lackies? this just makes me believe even more that the typical obama supporter has no clue about where he stands on the issues -- you are too caught up in the "i have a crush on obama" you tube phenomenon! he is a man who is beholden to the nuclear energy crowd, has not taken a hard stand in 5 years since his iraq speech and even then has talked the good game but has not followed up, has talked up his tough guy special interest legislature that won't let them sit with you at lunch but it is alright to stand. you can check his voting record and lack of any initiatives in the 2 years of his senate work or lack of and it shows a follower not a leader. he is a just like george w. in that respect. better yet when asked that if president he would do after the bhutto assassination -- number 2 on the list -- have musharaf call and express his condolences (wow -- insightful!!). even george bush wasn't that naive. oh i am sorry he did take the american flag off his lapel -- great stand up issue. so go have your crush on obama and leave the real work to the rest of us.

Posted by: celtic257 | February 9, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: svreader | February 9, 2008 03:14 PM
"Obama's plans are half-baked, just like most of his supporters."

svreader, you really should stop generalizing so much, unless you claim to know most Obama supporters. I doubt that you do.

And speaking of generalizations, I grew up in Omaha, NE and I know for a fact that African Americans make up less than 10% of the population. I disagree strongly with some Clinton supporters in this forum who are still trying to inject race in the Campaign by stating that there is a lot of racial tension between blacks and whites in Omaha. Bill Clinton tried to pigeon-hole Senator Obama as the new "Jesse Jackson". Some of you Clinton supporters really should give it up. Obama is not a "blacks only" candidate.

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 9, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

That's what I expect. You may see governors and congresspeople and other party big shots endorse one candidate or the other, but there should be no assumption that superdelegates are pledging one way or the other. Those are two different things.

There are a lot of superdelegates that won't alienate the nominee. That's why the DNC will have the ability to anoint Obama or Clinton, whichever leads in pledged delegates.

Dean and the Party leadership are aware of what happens if they back the runner-up. A disillusioned electorate that fractures and vaults McCain into the Oval Office.

Posted by: cam8 | February 9, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I think I agree with "cam8" on everything except that O-C or C-O ticket won't work. Too much blood have been spilled in this process.

Super delegates might be jumping over their beds, to get on a cabinet seat unless Dean comes out with a back door compromise with one to step down !

Posted by: rocky_rhapsody | February 9, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse


I appreciate that concern, and I've actually addressed that on a separate board.

The DNC is going to side with the one who comes out of the primaries with the lead. I don't necessarily think that it will go all the way to June 7, but it might, and even if it does, it will be dealt with like this:

MI and probably FL will hold caucuses and seat delegates. It might happen during the 5-week dead period (March 12-April 21) when there are no primaries or caucuses being held. The primary results are tainted, and I don't think that the DNC will be able to justify honoring them.

I suspect that someone will come out of the last day of primaries with an advantage of 100-200 delegates, not counting superdelegates. The DNC will move for a compromise, the structure of which will depend on who is leading.

If Clinton is ahead, I expect that a Clinton/Obama ticket is in order.

If Obama is ahead, I'm not sure that an Obama/Clinton ticket works. Sounds a lot like Bush/Cheney. Clinton will be offered the keynote speaker position at the convention, and take Harry Reid's position as Senate Majority Leader sometime in the next two years.

Either way, Clinton or Obama, whichever loses, is out on the stump for the other from day one.

Posted by: cam8 | February 9, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

have we forgotten or do we not know that obama's full name is Barack HUSSEIN Obama? are looking to have our country sold to terroists? i honestly feel hillary is the better candidate. for the u.s. not just nebraska

Posted by: ranchbowljunkee42069 | February 9, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

I was just reporting what I had seen this morning at my caucus here in Omaha. If the truth of the demographics bothers you, then you can't blame it on me.

Posted by: jwomaha | February 9, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

While I was breezing through the blogs here, something struck me. We all are a minority in some or the other way and our opinions/views usually do get biased by these categories viz. age, gender, race...

Even though bias do affect our active life, we don't rely on it completely and that certainly includes Voting.

Why do people get so personal when polls box them into a category of behavior voting ! Most of the time, they are just lying out the facts...

Posted by: rocky_rhapsody | February 9, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Fannyfern, you are interpretting too much of what Jwomaha has stated.

But what Obama is showing is that men and younger generation are neither sexist nor racist as one would suspect unlike older women. Need to wait and see in the general election how much our nation has progressed.

Posted by: anonym | February 9, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

By winning red states Barack is showing that he can reach a diverse electorate and at the same time putting red states in to play and with a dud like mccain that is highly possible. Hillary on the other hand will fire up the GOP base better than their nominee.

Hillary please step aside.... better yet.... ride this obama wave that will take us to CHANGE.

A Bush or a Clinton has been on the ticket for the past 28+ years. America was declining then and they are declining now. HMMM

Barack offers a fresh new concept. Hillary wants to fight for you. Barack want us to fight for America. Barack's initiatives such as health care and national are just as good, if not better than Hillary's. The most important point is if She does become president, she is such a divisive figure she will get NOTHING done because the partisanship will be even more intense. Not so with Barack.

I could go on and on..........BARACK 08

Posted by: ross1steven | February 9, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone else sense a subtle undercurrent of ageism in some of the remarks? Jwomaha writes that when he/she caucused in Omaha, "more young college students, educated white professionals, and very few older (over 60) people" were for Obama. But for Clinton "there were less than 10 young college age students, and few men.The 300 Hillary supporters were women - almost all over the age of 55." The suggestion seems to be that women over 55 are less credible as sources of good judgment than the other groups mentioned in the Obama camp. I think Obama's ability to inspire is great, but I also respect Clinton's knowledge and experience, and I respect the wisdom of the voters who choose her, even if they're beyond the pale at age 55--and even if they're women!

Posted by: fannyfern | February 9, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

I was talking to a friend of mine from NE who just came from the causus. He is from the very common split family views. The thing with Clinton is she is dealing with THE MOVEMENT called "Yes We Can" and looks like it getting outta control.

- Canadians Love Barak Too !

Posted by: rocky_rhapsody | February 9, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

cam8, while I think you have made some thoughtful observations, I do not think it will necessarily be a "kiss and make up" situation. Donna Brazille said this week if the 796 super delagates override the regular delegate vote, she would leave the Democratic party and further said she feels very strongly about it. Others could end up feeling disenfranchised by their own party thereby creating a split that will flow over into the general election.

Posted by: dukey | February 9, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

The fact is, this race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton has exploded turnout nationwide. That explosion will carry over into November and swamp the GOP.

I am inclined to agree with those who believe that the typically red states that have gone big for Obama (GA, AL, KS, CO, SC) will still probably stay red in the general. I also believe that the typically blue states that went to Clinton (NY, MA, NJ, CA) will stay blue.

What Obama may be able to do that Clinton can't is to energize the Democratic electorate in those red states, and force John McCain to spend lots of time and money campaigning in states that the GOP can usually rely upon.

Posted by: cam8 | February 9, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

I like both Hillary and Barack. They are both very intelligent people and the Democratic party should be proud.

I think the reason that we are seeing so much support for Barack is Americans a just FED-UP!!! We are ready for a change, even if that means electing someone with little experience. Experience doesn't mean much when the decisions of the elected officials AREN'T in the best interest of the country as a whole. We just wants someone who gives a damn!!!!

Posted by: Pumpkin31 | February 9, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

celtic257-your comments appear to come from not paying attention to a lot of other good people.

It is painful to see the demonization of fellow Democrats. It makes us look like republicans. As NAFTA and international trade agreements have come to reveal some unforeseen consequences, and after hearing about Rupert Murdoch throwing fundraisers for Hillary, and noticing that the health care industry is a huge HRC donor, much of my appreciation for the Clintons has waned. Still, Hillary is progressive in her senate votes 90% of the time. She would be a much better president than any of the bat s**t crazy republicans. I will vote for her if she is the dem candidate. However, she makes a big deal of Obama's lack of experience. Do we need experience or do we need integrity, vision, the talent to communicate ideas to all Americans and the ability to bring us together as a people? New Obama supporters have no reason to support anyone just because they he/she is a Democrat. A Democratic party majority was elected to Congress in 2006 and what good has it done? Impeachment is "off the table." The Bush administration has continued to break laws, wiretap, and make signing statements. The Democratic party has not given those new, enthusiastic Obama supporters any reason to work their hearts out. Sure, I'll vote for Hillary because I'm old, pragmatic, and accustomed to holding my nose and voting the evil of two lessors. Will I make phone calls, campaign door-to-door, wave signs, and volunteer to be a poll observer as I have done for Obama? Not very likely.

Posted by: eepatt | February 9, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse


I'm not inclined to believe that Hillary will sweep March 4th, especially after getting crushed all the way through the end of February.

And when the general comes around, if Barack Obama is the nominee, do you really think that Hillary and Bill Clinton won't be stumping for him? And vice versa if Hillary gets the nom.

Grow up everybody. This is a campaign. When it's over, and someone comes out with the nomination, they'll kiss and make up and start working to beat John McCain.

Posted by: cam8 | February 9, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse


here are the serious positions that Barack Obama has taken and is taking:

Do some research, or shut up.

Thankfully, most people don't buy into your brand of cynical, one-sided garbage.

Posted by: cam8 | February 9, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Lpeter is actually correct (to an extent). Yes, Obama won CT, MO, UT, DE, etc. On the other hand, he generally does well in caucuses because he attracts partisan enthusiasts. Hillary's base is clearly blue collar and they do not have the time to spend 2 hours at a caucus. Obama's base is white collar workers and young people who have the time/energy to attend a caucus. Nebraska is favorable for Obama because it is a caucus and not a primary.

I'm certainly not discounting Obama's victories, but look at the trends. Obama wins in primaries with black populations, affluent people, and an energized youth. He also wins caucuses (except for NV and possibly NM). I do think that all of the caucuses and the primary today will probably go to Obama. I also think the March 4th states will go to Clinton. This is a very interesting race and it would be interesting to see how it plays out.

Posted by: nycfc86 | February 9, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Vegetablesplease. You sound like a friend of Ipeter59 along with his narrow minded thinking. I don't think either one of you know how to read and if you do, you do not read anything of substance. Regarding Obama vs McCain, take a look at the "Analysis: Obama has advantage in head-to-head with McCain" that is on the CNN website. The contents therein reflect polls done by CNN and Time magazine. Both of you need to base your diatribes on something other than cynical thoughts and expressions.

Posted by: dukey | February 9, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

We are in an ongoing war on terrorism and Obama supporters better wake up.....there is no way BARAK OBAMA will be in the white house in Jan 08......Anti War=Anti Terriorism (eyes of Republicans)

Posted by: jsteph23 | February 9, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse


So, Republicans are caucusing for Obama, right?

And, of course, they're lying about it and claiming to be Democrats or independents in the entrance/exit polls, right?

All those thousands of Obama supporters must be part of a vast Republican conspiracy, because it's inconceivable that people would be moved by his rhetoric and impressed by his positions, right?

Do you have any more unsubstantiated claims?

Posted by: cam8 | February 9, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Most of the Black population is centered in parts of Omaha - but not in my district where I caucused this morning - very few black people. As stated earlier, We had over 1,000 people in my district -700+ for Obama, and the rest (mostly older women/few men/very few young people) for Clinton. However, the biggest surprise was the number of Republicans re-registering as Democrats...over 500 at my location, I'd say...this is important because Nebraska is the reddest of all red states (our courts just overturned the use of the electic chair YESTERDAY). The Republican rats are leaving the sinking ship G.W...ha ha...and Johnny come lately McCain better shudder at that thought in November.

Posted by: jwomaha | February 9, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Can Hillary actually win a state without a large Latino population that won't vote for a black guy?...

Posted by: cjroses | February 9, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Uh, lpeter59? Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Idaho, Alaska, Nebraska are not filled with black people. And he wins in all categories

Are you kidding about Missouri? St. Louis County and Kansas City have a huge Black population. Overland, Kansas has a huge Black population. I agree with Idaho, and Alaska though. As for Nebraska, has he won it yet and what's the racial make-up of Omaha?

Posted by: badger3 | February 9, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Has it occurred to anyone that Republicans are caucusing for Obama? Doesn't it strike you as a little strange that he does so well in overwhelmingly red states?

The GOP knows he has no chance in the general election against McCain and so they are deliberately sabotaging the process. Thank God for Superdelegates.

Posted by: VegetablesPlease | February 9, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Ipeter 59 YOUR ARE GETTING SLAMMED HERE AND YOU DESERVE TO BE! Not because you're against Obama , but because your facts are completely wrong ...

Posted by: la-mute | February 9, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

how about obama taking a serious position for a change instead of changing and hoping for one -- and please do not say the iraq war -- as he is all over the place the past 3 years. there hasn't been an issue he hasn't ducked or didn't show up for in his career - what a fantasy you all are living in!! go john mccain -- at least you will get some straight talk and experience.

Posted by: celtic257 | February 9, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

OHIO4580 - Obama/Webb? Yeeesss! That's the ticket.

Posted by: jhbyer | February 9, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Last time I looked, Nebraska was a whiter shade of pale and no shortage of women. Obama is shoveling snow with Hillary!

Posted by: jhbyer | February 9, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba - The secrecy shrouding government files on terror suspects is bogging down the Pentagon's effort to hold trials at Guantanamo Bay, with defense attorneys accusing the government of withholding potential exculpatory evidence.

At pretrial hearings this week, attorneys for two al-Qaida suspects captured in Afghanistan said they need more access to interrogators, witnesses and records. Prosecutors objected, citing a need to protect the identities of U.S. service members and other security concerns.

The hearings did not resolve the disputes, which appear likely to further delay the launch of first U.S. war-crime tribunals since the World War II era. The first detainees were charged more than three years ago, but repeated legal challenges have kept any from going to trial.

"We're going to have to see how willing the judges are to interpret the rules so as to give defense counsel some kind of chance to actually defend their clients," said Navy Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler, a defense attorney for detainee Omar Khadr. "That means litigating these discovery issues and that takes time."

Trials are scheduled to begin this spring for Khadr, who is accused of hurling a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier in 2002, and Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden who allegedly also delivered weapons for al-Qaida.

They are minor figures compared with the 15 "high-value" detainees - including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks - who are among those expected to face charges. Secrecy may be even a bigger issue in their trials.

The New York Times reported Saturday that military prosecutors are nearing the end of preparations for the "first sweeping case" against as many as six Guantanamo detainees suspected in the Sept. 11 plot - Mohammed likely among them.

The law authorizing the war-crimes tribunals allows the use of classified evidence, and prosecutors say they fulfill their obligation to share it with the other side. But some defense attorneys say the government uses too narrow an interpretation of what information is relevant and should be provided to the defense.

Classified evidence will likely play an increasingly central role as the government forges ahead with plans to prosecute about 80 of the roughly 275 men held at this isolated U.S. Navy base on suspicion of terrorism or links to the Taliban or al-Qaida.

A Pentagon spokesman, Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, said the government's decisions to classify evidence often reflect a need to protect U.S. forces still fighting in Afghanistan.

"The hearings this week demonstrated some of the complexities involved in a new type of war against a new type of enemy," he said, while expressing optimism. "On balance, we're making progress and moving forward."

In Hamdan's case, his attorneys asked the military judge to provide them access to government employees who interrogated Hamdan after his capture in November 2001. One of his attorneys, Charles Swift, said the defense wants to determine whether Hamdan made any statements through coercion.

Hamdan's defense team said they have been provided with only partial, incriminating portions of his interrogation transcripts - an accusation that prosecutors denied.

"Every statement that he has made we have provided," said Army Col. Larry Morris, the chief prosecutor for the military tribunals.

In Khadr's case, Kuebler said the government has refused to put defense lawyers in touch with several eyewitnesses to the 2002 firefight in Afghanistan which Khadr, who was then 15, allegedly hurled a grenade that killed Army Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer.

At one of the hearings this week, the government inadvertently released a witness account that raised doubt over whether Khadr threw the grenade. Prosecutors later said they had planned to hand out a redacted version, but Kuebler said he believed the government meant to keep the witness account from the public.

"There's no openness about this process," he said.

The military commissions, as the tribunals are called, convicted one detainee - David Hicks of Australia - but it was through a plea bargain before his trial even began.

Posted by: jwholtkamp | February 9, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Actually Ipeter59 and jburke, the demographics for Nebraska indicate that it is 49% male, 51% female; 88.6% white, 7.4% hispanic, 4.1% black and 1.7% Asian. These demographics would indicate that Ms. Hillary is headed for a landslide victory. If Senator Obama wins, then I guess it would be an upset of tremendous proportions according to your logic.

Posted by: zmptr | February 9, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Peter - Idaho is 98% white and went 80% for Obama. Shut up now, thanks.

svreader - Do you have a life or a job? every time I come here you've got 408324 new posts about how Hillary is so sweet and Obama is for fake change.

If you spent as much time listening to the candidates as you do posting GOP talking points, you might realize why people like Obama so much.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 9, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Jburke- I love you you mention Black people and racial tension in the same breath. Nice one.
And yeah, I know St. Louis has black people. What several of us are saying is that dismissing Obama as only appealing to black voters isn't reflected by the White people (and Latinos and Asians) that are voting for him. He has broad appeal. Clinton does too. This bodes well for the Democratic party.

Posted by: leap1 | February 9, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

The only "16 year plan" I'd support has Obama/Webb. Clinton is in the past.

Posted by: ohio4580 | February 9, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Yes svreader, it would be nice to change from an incompetent (health care reform), poor judgement (Iraq, Iran), racist (comment in debate about hispanics taking jobs of blacks based on one conversation), vindictive (striking out at Cooper, a Democrat because of perceived usurpation of initiative), flip flopping (license issue, focus of campaign....etc), adiplomatic (won't talk to our enemies without preconditions like Bush), very slow to learn (same obtuseness / obtrusiveness of health care plan now as before) to a person who is the opposite of all those not so desirable traits.

Posted by: cbday | February 9, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Let's harness the excitement we're seeing among Democrats for BOTH amazing candidates. Sign the petition to Howard Dean and the DNC at

Posted by: steven4 | February 9, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

If you are black, how can you not consider a sympathetic vote for Obama?

However, this consideration is not necessarily the only factor. He looks good, sounds great and says lofty, empowering words.

Clinton, on the other hand, has a tin ear for speeches and a flat presentation.

Personally, I would vote for Clinton's experience versus Obama's 3 years on the national scene.

If Obama is the candidate, the Republicans will win on his meager experience. He was a state legislator in 2002. That really doesn't qualify you for President in 2008.

Posted by: stivgdgy | February 9, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Thank you barvettas for including North Dakota and Minnesota for Ipeter 59's enlightment. As a matter of fact, even extremely conservative western North Dakota (I'm eastern) went overwhelmingly for Senator Obama in our caucuses. I think our African American population is about five percent in the state. So Ipeter 59 - do your research before you pontificate.

Posted by: dukey | February 9, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Pro-Obama posts come down to "we're for change. Change is wonderful.

That's like saying

"We're for Oxygen. Oxygen is wonderful!!!"

Everybody already knew that.

What we want to know is what you intend to change, why, and how you intend to do it.

Obama's plans are half-baked, just like most of his supporters.

Posted by: svreader | February 9, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

chandroth purushothaman
I have been voting in us elections last 28 years.I am a registere republican and allways voted republican.This year I am going to vote for Barrac Obama if he is the candidate.I am not against Bush or Meccain;But there is something unique and genuine and inspiring about Obama.Obama reprents greatness of american spirit.People talk about experience.But every time we elected so called experienced person it ends up in disaster.Remember Nixon? Clitons are true incarnation of Richard Nixon.Their love to poor people and black people are a myth.Just an act get to their votes.These are calculating people who will do anything to be in power.When are Afro americans,Latinos and poor white people going to realize it. It is true that I may have to pay atleast 100,000$ more in taxes if Obama wins!But I want to say that I will be happy to pay it.

Posted by: chandroth44 | February 9, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

kinda painful to see Hillary standing in the way of such a powerful movement as Obama's

Posted by: robertell | February 9, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

What I find interesting is that the Nebraska Democrats do not have a secret ballot for the Presidential Preference Primary. This is similar to Iowa caucuses where you get to join the appropriate group to represent your choice.

Posted by: bthompson | February 9, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Ipeter 59, then please explain Obama victories in Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, N. Dakota, and Utah?

Posted by: barvettas | February 9, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Actually leap1 and ddraper81, Omaha does have a decent number of black voters -- and there is a lot of racial tension in the city. And Missouri? Check the demographics of St. Louis City before you make any more comments.

Posted by: jburke | February 9, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

I was at one of the Omaha, Nebraska caucus locations this morning and over 1,000 people showed up. Over 700 of those (including me) were for Obama. Within our group, I counted 10 black people. There were more young college students, educated white professionals, and very few older (over 60) people. In contrast, in the Hillary section, there were less than 10 young college age students, and few men. The 300 Hillary supporters were women - almost all over the age of 55. Quite interesting, don't you think?

Posted by: jwomaha | February 9, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Those gosh darn White people in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Idaho, Alaska and Nebraska must be watching to much BET.

The religious right needs to do something about it. Oh I forgot they already did, they gave us Bush & Co.. Thanks guys!

Posted by: AverageJane | February 9, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

lpeter59 what about these reports substantiate you theory "Obama wins caucuses and primaries with a high concentration of black voters."

It doesn't say anything about the race of these people. I doubt there is a high amount of African Americans that live in Omaha Nebraska.

Come on exercise some acceptance of reality.

Posted by: ddraper81 | February 9, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Uh, lpeter59? Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Idaho, Alaska, Nebraska are not filled with black people. And he wins in all categories.

Posted by: leap1 | February 9, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

It's the same old stuff. Obama wins caucuses and primaries with a high concentration of black voters. Clinton wins everything else. Nothing has changed. No votes are being moved.

Posted by: lpeter59 | February 9, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

This says it all:
"How can you complain when others don't have this privelege?" said Win Wadginski, who stood in line for an hour with a 2-year-old.

Posted by: TomJx | February 9, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Apparently the same is not true in LA. It's the first state where they are saying voting is LOWER than expected. It's obviously still a very depressed, demoralized state. It's too bad they couldn't have gotten a better calendar spot, like Feb 5. Whoever wins the election has a LOT of work to do to make that state feel like part of the Union again.

Posted by: cmss1 | February 9, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

The overflow capacities of the caucuses are overflowing. A sign of things to come in November perhaps? Better get the voting machines working right this time. GO Barack.

Posted by: iangalloway58 | February 9, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company