« Senior Hillary Adviser On Whether She'll Take On O'Reilly: "That's Not The Plan" | Home | Obama And Clinton Both Play Up Illinois Roots In New Indiana Ads »
Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) Endorses Clinton
Hillary Clinton has picked up a big super-delegate endorsement, with the campaign announcing the support of Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a key rural Democrat.
Skelton cited Hillary's strengths in rural areas as major reason for his support, plus her positions on national security. This further ties in with the efforts Hillary has made to overpower Obama among white rural voters in places like Pennsylvania and now North Carolina, and complements her endorsement this morning from North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley.
Advertisement
2 to 2 for the day. At this rate Obama will have it wrapped up by June 3rd.
Excellent news!
April 29, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two for Sen Clinton? Skelton and who else? I must have missed one.
April 29, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The governor of NC.
April 29, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
If this is what is meant by 2-2 for today, that is fine, but I note that we were all talking about yesterday being 1-1. That was because we were counting Gov Easley yesterday. In other words, either yesterday was 1-0 Obama, or today is 2-1 Obama, but it seems odd to count Gov Easley's endorsement both yesterday (when the news first broke) and today (when he formally endorsed).
April 29, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can TPM please put up a banner for the IN poll released today showing Obama up 47-45....Just to give equal time, you have had the Survey USA poll from NC up almost all day.
I hate covering every poll like its news, but if you are going to do it, be consistent at least.
April 29, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric's a Clinton supporter. He doesn't post polls favorable to Obama, like the Rasmussen tracking poll because it's a four-day tracking poll.
April 29, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I forgot, the four day poll is much less precise or some such crap.
April 29, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just posted a comment downthread - there really seems to be no fair and equal treatment here. I'm starting to agree with others who have complained about Greg's (rather obvious) bias. It's not just framing the posts in a certain way; it's ignoring stuff that's beneficial to the Obama campaign (like his super-delegate pickups) and highlighting stuff that's negative (like the silly post before this on whether Wolfson would say that Hillary was going to "take on" Fox the way the "unnamed" Obama surrogate did). Jeesh.
April 29, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Ike, say it ain't so. I always liked you. Ah well, if you ran against Claire McCaskill I would still vote for you in a heartbeat, and that goes even moreso if you were to consider taking on Kit Bond in 2010.
April 29, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ike Skelton is a tool of the defense industry, isn't he?
That would explain his endorsement of uber-hawk Clinton. But no, according to Greg (Sargent), he is endorsing her because of all of her yeoman's work on behalf of working class rural voters.
April 29, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is the chairman of the house armed services committee, if that is what you mean. He has been a notably critic of the Iraq war, however, so I do not know that he quite falls into the "uber-hawk" camp. As I said, I rather like Rep Skelton and think that he has done a good job representing his district (in which I have family) and the state of MO overall.
April 29, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still think he's a Scoop Jackson Democrat who's never seen a request for weapons funding that he didn't like.
April 29, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
A support for Clinton is a support for the GOP.
April 29, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yikes Skeleton!
Well, the Supers are starting to fall in line for Chairman Dean, if nothing else.
April 29, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, a rural endorsment for Hillary "efforts Hillary has made to overpower Obama among white rural voters in places like Pennsylvania and now North Carolina" but when Kentucky SDs endorse Obama, it's because they don't know what the hell they are doing?
You are officially a Clinton mouthpiece. Have fun posting for gotalife and Marginal Player, because I am not coming back to this site until you're gone or Obama's the nominee.
April 29, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you.
April 29, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's not because they don't know what they're doing...
In other words, a superdelegate for Clinton is big news, and helps her. A superdelegate for Obama is odd, because it's not going to help the superdelegate.
And Greg DL: it is two for two. The governor of North Carolina, who said Hillary Clinton made Rocky Balboa look like a pansy (apparently, Hillary is pandering for the antigay vote) in addition to Ike.
April 29, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, stop with the "pandering to the anti-gay vote" thing. I am gay, and realize this was clearly not an intended slight against homosexuals. I doubt Hillary would send her daughter out to gay bars in Philadelphia if she were worried about courting the anti-gay vote. Jesus.
April 29, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're correct. It wasn't Clinton who was using a recognized slur. It was the superdelegate whose support she just earned.
April 29, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Might I also add, look at the church the Clintons chose to attend while Bill was President.
No, I highly doubt they would ever court the anti-gay vote.
April 29, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Clinton is fortunate to have such a stalwart supporter in you.
At this point, I wouldn't be surprised (dismayed, yes) if Clinton were to court the anti-gay vote. She is fortunate that she still has supporters like you who still think highly of her.
I don't share your beliefs about her, clearly.
April 29, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the governor of NC was counted in the totals yesterday. By my count she has picked up one today and one yesterday. Yesterday Obama picked up Sen Bingaman and Clinton picked up Gov Easley. Today Obama picked up Rep Chandler and Mr Machacek, while Clinton has picked up Rep Skelton. That makes yesterday 1 to 1 and today 2 to 1 (so far, at least).
April 29, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pretty sure that pandering to the anti-gay vote is excellent news for Hillary...
April 29, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Governor of North Carolina? Correct?
April 29, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
This page is starting to sound like it should be called "TPM Hillary Central".
April 29, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Compare the wording of this post with the wording of the two Superdelegate endorsement posts for Obama.
Now tell me there isn't a whole truckload of bias at this site.
April 29, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on.
No one has done more for Missouri than Barack Obama.
April 29, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please don't ever stop, dear commenter. You make my day.
April 29, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on.
No one has done more for brain death than commenter.
April 29, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ike also wants to obliterate Iran.
April 29, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love how Hillary is now the voice for rural and working class white voters. My, these times are odd. I'm actually getting to the point where I almost want to see Hillary get elected President, just so it can be proven that no, Hillary Clinton doesn't give a goddamn about you, you poor ignorant white folk. She would be elected on the platform of health care, jobs, energy, and the war. And you know what would happen? Not health care, that won't get passed. And she'll bring as many new jobs to America as she did to New York (hint, it's less than zero). She will keep us in Iraq indefinitely. Gas prices will go up, oil companies continue to profit. And, oh yeah, all you working class rural voters? Hmm, what are the words I'm looking for? Oh yeah - Screw you!!
April 29, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's not going to get elected, though, if she somehow steals the nomination...That's the funny part.
And, if in some odd fluke of events, she does get elected, the Republicans will be united like never before to put up roadblocks, so she's not going to get much done.
April 29, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is odd to think, isn't it. Imagine that Edwards had won Iowa instead of Obama. Extend the hypothesis - Obama's candidacy fizzles early on while Edwards rockets to the top and offers Clinton (whom, at the time, everyone regarded as well-nigh invincible in the democratic primary) an unexpected run for her money. Imagine that Clinton made all the same mistakes against Edwards that she made against Obama, such that we arrived at a point on Feb 6 where the nomination was not wrapped up and the two had to fight each other tooth and nail for the nomination. Does anyone doubt but that it would be Clinton about whom the pundits would be wringing their hands and asking "can she win working class white voters?" while pooh-poohing the way she wins certain states based on an overwhelming margin of support from black voters?
April 29, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we stop calling every super a "big" one or "super-super"? They are all big gets at this point.
Even if they do look 100 years old and come from a state Obama won.
April 29, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe - Obama has superdelegates from states Clinton won also. If SDs were voting based on who won their state, then Obama wouldn't have SDs from Mass, CA, TX, AZ, NM, PA and so on and so forth. If its good for him, then its good for her. And actually this is to all - Obama supporters spend most of their time trashing Clinton and those who support her. All you have to do is look at the blogs on her site and look at the blogs on his site - I've looked at both and a lot of trash talk about Clinton goes on, on a regular basis on the Obama site. But if you look at Clinton blogs, they talk about rallies, support, donations and give Clinton pep talks, ideas and pats on the back, virtually no "trash" talk about Obama. This is probably because a lot of Obama's supporters are young kids right out of high school and in the early stages of college - not saying that's bad, but by virtue of age and life experience, they lack maturity (fact, not fiction - little to no life experience). And, before you start trashing me, I have a 25 and 21 year old, I know what I'm talking about and I was immature in age and life experience at the age also. So no trash talk intended to the young - I was young once too, I know how it is. But let's just support our candidate and quit trashing our opponent's candidate - how about that? Obama will lead in pledged delegates (Clinton has a 23 SD lead as of today), Clinton will lead in popular vote as Dean has said they will come up with a way to seat MI and FL and in FL the campaign was totally fair - he campaigned via TV ads (not on purpose I know!), she didn't, both on the ballot, vote should stand as is (FL alone will put her ahead in popular vote, she got almost 1M more votes than he did). So, 1 - in delegate lead, 1 - in popular vote - both votes of the people - so it comes down to SDs - neither can win without them (Obama or Hillary), therefore no one will actually "steal" the election - may the best man or woman win - I wish its Hillary, but I won't be totally bummed if its Obama - let the race continue.....Hillary '08!!
April 29, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
What makes this a big endorsement? Missouri has already had its primary. I mean every super delegate counts, but why is this a "big" deal?
April 29, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
1) Rep Skelton is a rather important man in democratic politics in the swing state of MO.
2) He is also a fairly high-profile democratic house member (chairman of the armed services committee).
3) Clinton needs every last super that she can get. Any time she nabs a super it is big news because she needs them so badly.
April 29, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Skelton represents a rural Congressional district in Missouri; he certainly does not represent the entire state. And I'm in Missouri and represent a bit of a different picture than Greg DL is presenting here.
This should confuse no one--Hillary's support is in the very dying rural and small town areas that Ike represents. And those are the areas Hillary won in the Missouri primary--the ones that are dying.
Ike won't ever give up his house seat; he's conservative enough to win a rural/small town district. But representative of Missouri? I don't think so.
April 29, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why isn't it: "Clinton NABS another super-delegate?"
Anyway, good for her, I guess.
April 29, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
New poll in Indiana shows Obama ahead 47-45....you have it on your poll tracker, so why not a headline???
April 29, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because it's not excellent news for Hillary. If it was posted here, then it will have the caveat of "This poll was taken before Wrightgate Part II, so it remains to be seen if that will have a negative effect on Obama in the polls."
April 29, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
and Eric so does love his caveats.
April 29, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
How depressingly true. Also serves to underscore the inanity of daily poll watching. Obama might fart and lose a few points on Tuesday, but by Thursday be benefitting from the post-fart bounce as people begin to respect his candor on the issue.
April 29, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point.
April 29, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, she's got the septuagenarian vote all locked up.
April 29, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
This guy looks like he has one foot in the grave. Those old retiring politicians love Hillary--cuz they have no future career.
April 29, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, not to be snipy or whiny, I'm going to start keeping track of the number of hours (or days) it takes Greg and Eric to post an Obama super-delegate endorsement vs. a Clinton super endorsement. The Clinton endorsements seem to go up a LOT quicker than the Obama ones (in some cases, we never see a Greg or Eric post and have to rely on citizen bloggers here to alert us). Greg, I'm not asking for preferential treatment, just equal treatment. Last week I implored you to put up a post on an endorsement that Obama got and I never saw it. What gives?
April 29, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, I might add, when Greg posted today about Obama's super-delegate pickup, he had to editorialize it with the statement that "if he catches up to her in delegates that will really be a BIG story". As if it's not already a big story that even after his loss in Pennsylvania (and the ensuing media hysteria about Clinton "coming back" and somehow getting a mandate from the voters) his super-delegate pickup has not slowed down.
April 29, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the way MSNBC frames the super-delegate issue. If an endorsement/ SD 'get' is worthy of its own post First Read also gives the news summary.
like so:
This brings the superdelegate count to:
CLINTON 266
OBAMA 244
Since Pennsylvania, it's Obama 7, Clinton 4. (285 are uncommitted).
PLEDGED: Obama 1,490-1,334
OVERALL: Obama 1,734-1,600
I think our kind hosts could learn a thing or two from this practice and calm partisans by presenting the facts as things progress.
April 29, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that's a nice setup. Alas, we shall never see anything that even-handed here. I can't wait until primary season is over and we can all go back to fighting the Republicans!
April 29, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry, carol, but TPM is hardly pro-Hillary. you can count us clinton supporters on one hand. considering all the pro-obama coverage at TPM (on the whole), i find your whining to be nearly unbearable (maybe that is just me?)
in light of all of the pleading for the media coverage to stop focussing on non-issue issues, the constant attacks on greg (and occasionally eric) to stop giving hillary even one tiny measure of even-handed coverage just blows my mind.
if you feel that TPM isn't covering every little wiggle in the superdelegate race, then why don't you find some other blogs? for example:
http://thepage.time.com
mark halperin seems to cover every tick in the race for superdelegates (see, i am offering constructive advice along with my kvetching over your kvetching!)
April 29, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carol - it doesn't matter if this site is posting more of Clinton's SDs vs Obama's. ObamaNBC and ObamaCNN do a great job of leaning the news towards "everything Obama." In fact, you might be interested to know that Clinton picked up SDs last weekend that were not reported by ObamaNBC and ObamaCNN, but they didn't hesitate to lead with stories talking about Obama's SD endorsements. Even though the press has leaned heavily towards Obama, it hasn't hurt Clinton in winning almost all the largest states in the US thus far - I believe Obama only has won two large states and one was the state he's a senator in - IL. Obama has been favored greatly by the press - in fact I'm surprised that Chris Matthews and Keith Obermann can breathe without a snorkel they are so far up his bum! HA Regardless of whether its posted here or not, never fear - the Obama TV networks will make sure the news gets out! Do I sound cynical about the news reporting for the candidate I support - sure I do - but it won't change things - it is what it is. Hillary '08!
April 29, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still no headline on the IN poll, but the NC poll still up.....Josh? Greg? Eric? anyone care to comment? Is it because we don't trust this local political outfit running the poll? They seem to have a good reputation...what gives?
April 29, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with DemDave1972...
Keep them coming. I want this thing over before June.
Keep in mind, Hillary needs to be picking up Supers at least 2-1.
2-2 is not going to cut it.
April 29, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Folks - if you want SD updates - head over to KOS:
"Over the weekend, Obama gained a super delegate in New Mexico and lost one to Edwards in Iowa (according to projections), while Clinton gained an add-on super in New Hampshire.
So the total since Saturday: Obama +4, Clinton +2, and Edwards +1."
Since PA, Obama has outgained Hillary 4-2 is SDs.
Of course, I;m not sure how many of then are 'Big' SDs - as opposed to 'Regular' SDs or 'Small' Sds (to use TPM's biased adjectival forms), but to paraphrase a famous poet - a SD is a SD is a SD.....
April 29, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You guys are so funny! If you don't have a brain to detect pro-Obama bias from Josh and his associates, you really have to get a check whehter a tumor is growing in your head.
April 29, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Greg and Eric breathlessly catapulting anything Wolfson says in his conference calls is somehow pro-Obama bias?
So is the gravity on your planet anything like it is here on earth?
April 29, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to point out what seems to me to be an obvious observation that I have not seen mentioned by the "regulars" on this site.
Eric stated, "This further ties in with the efforts Hillary has made to overpower Obama among white rural voters in places like Pennsylvania and now North Carolina, and complements her endorsement this morning from North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley." Yet the earlier post noting the addition of another Obama super delegate from Iowa, a farmer in Iowa, a rural resident makes no such reference for Senator Obama. IN addition to that I have not seen any reference to the Congressional District Conventions in Iowa last week-end. The delegate count after the conventions is 24 for Senator Obama, 14 for Senator Clinton and 1 for Edwards. This is rural America, primarily Caucasian rural America and Senator Obama is still the far away favorite candidate.
Denis
April 29, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason is that, since Obama's camp doesn't have a direct feed into TPMEC, they might have to actually read something other than their e-mail.
That's probably why there's never any positive spin on the good news for Obama, either.
April 29, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup! ;)
April 29, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg has been even-handed lately, but it does not excuse the odd slant on the reporting of superdelegate announcements or the polls.
April 29, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fellow Clinton supporters.
We won.
Lets give our fellow Obama supporters a break.
Give them time to mourn the downfall of Obama.
Then we will encourage them to join us and unite with Senator Hillary Clinton to win the general easily.
As we have seen recently in the Supreme Court ruling and the ID law, a Dem President is very important. Much bigger than Obama or Clinton. We have an occupation to end and an economy to save.
We will crush mcwar in the general and get our country back in the right direction.
April 29, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama narrows superdelegate gap
April 29, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We won"? Really? You want to provide a link for that? Otherwise, sorry, it's not happening - only in your world, I suppose.
April 29, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you a parody troll?
April 29, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rep. Ben Chandler (D-KY) Endorses Obama
By Eric Kleefeld - April 29, 2008, 3:50PM
Barack Obama has picked up a big super-delegate endorsement, with the campaign announcing the support of Rep. Ben Chandler (D-KY), grandson of a former two-time governor of the Bluegrass state and a key rural Democrat.
Chandler cited Obama's strengths in rural areas as major reason for his support, plus her positions on national security. This further ties in with the efforts Obama has made to overpower Clinton among white rural voters in places like Pennsylvania and now North Carolina, and complements her endorsement this morning from Democratic National Committee member superdelegate from Iowa Richard Machaceck.
April 29, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I saw that - a rare, timely Obama super-endorsement post by Eric (who actually seems to be better than Greg at posting pro-Obama news). If you go back a few days you'll see what we're talking about.
April 29, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The loss in Iowa was not a super delegate; it was a projected pledged delegate out of the county conventions. The Obama camp had projected a loss of 3 delegates at the district level from the county level disbursement of delegates. The good news was there was only the one loss [unfortunately in the 3rd district which is my district] and not a loss to Hillary. The 3rd district delegate end count was 3 for Obama 2 for Hillary and 1 for Edwards with the alternate being Obama. The additional interesting news is the 3rd district is HEAVILY influenced by Des Moines and it's suburbs - no loss of Obama support in rural Iowa
April 29, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know people are losing when they complain about everything. The way they trash totally respectable, by any standard, superdelegates who support Clinton only signals how nervous they have become. They are scared and they sense they can really lose this thing. Per the great reverend Wright, you reap what you sow. You suffer emotionally for trusting your country to an inexperienced unvetted novice!
April 29, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not trashing the superdelegates who support Clinton (good for them for exercising their best judgement), but I am bashing the obviously biased reporting about such endorsements.
April 29, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Start your own blog. That will show them.
April 29, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obamabots -- stop the WHINING!!! WAHWAHWAH, you sound like your Fearless leader now, dang, I guess sucking it up and behaving like adults is not part of the faux Unity ticket.
April 30, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chandler cited Obama's strengths in rural areas as major reason for his support, plus her positions on national security
What Planet does Chandler live on -- what Obama strengths in rural areas? LOL!!! Just about as valid as "her" positions on national security. This is a joke, right?!
April 30, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama gets the nomination the White House is lost. Obama's supporters are living in a fantasy world, and will have a rude awakening on election day. Obama always polls well ahead of actual returns. If Obama is the nominee this is what will happen; in the quiet of the voting booth, away from judging eyes, voters will reluctantly go with McCain. Middle and rural America will not vote for him....even if they claimed to in an exit poll. Hillary is the only Democrat that can actually beat McCain this fall.
My hope is that the super-delegates already know this, and after she wins the same demographic in Indiana, as in Pennsylvania, that will convince them beyond doubt.
April 30, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck you, you condescending asshole. You're not better than us just because you're from one of the coasts.
I'd rather be a Wisconsinite or Iowan (Obama) than a Rhode Islander (Clinton).
April 30, 2008 6:15 AM | Reply | Permalink