NBC's First Read: More on Former Iowa Party Chair Gordon Fischer's endorsement of Obama

[flpoljunkie]

From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro

The former head of the Iowa Democratic Party, Gordon Fischer, endorsed Obama today on a conference call with reporters. Fischer said his reasons for supporting Obama is because of his electability, ability to be a change agent and policies.

“I am desperate to win the White House,” Fischer said.“I think Senator Obama has the best chance of all the Democrats. It’s not enough to just get Democrats out. You have to bring along Indendents and Republicans, and he’s in the best position to bring along independents and some Republicans.”

On electability, he said Obama would be help “down ballot candidates.” When asked if that was a shot at Clinton, he said he likes Clinton and thinks she’s electable, just not as electable as Obama. As a change agent, he said Obama brings “freshness” and a “new perspective” to the race. On his policies, Fischer, who said he and his wife Monica made the decision over the weekend, said he’s been “impressed” with Obama’s “bold ideas,” particularly his recent middle-class tax cut proposal.

“I will be in touch with Iowa Democrats. Frankly I know a lot of them from my time as party chair,” Fischer said. “And I will be making my pitch for Obama. And I’m hoping to get a lot of folks to sign supporter cards and get them to caucus for Obama.”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/24/376560.aspx

[Debi]

1. Will this affect anyone's support or nonsupport of Obama?

I am a little surprised. I thought Gordon may go with John Edwards (the lawyer thing) or with Clinton (the Vilsack thing), so it's interesting that he has endorsed Obama. I just wonder if it will sway any votes.

[Colobo]

2. Let's hope it does!

[Debi]

4. Well, obviously you'd feel that way...

:crazy:

I meant anyone who is undecided.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. Obviously helps Obama, hurts Clinton, hurts Edwards the most

Of those three Edwards needs to come in first in Iowa the most. A close second in Iowa for either Obama or Clinton would still be workable for either of those two but less so for Edwrds because; A) Edwards is the one trailing of those three in National polls so he needs the boost from Iowa the most and B) Edwards can not hide from the fact that he has poured huge resourses into Iowa and for a long time was the clear front runner there expected to win and C) The rece between Obmaa and Edwards to claim the title as the most viable "anti-Clinton" is in some ways almost as important as the race to come in first in Iowa overall. Perhaps Edwards can remain viable if Clinton edges him in Iowa and Edwards clearly beats Obama for second, but coming in behind Obama in Iowa would be hard for Edwards to explain away.

[Debi]

5. I just posted in another thread that I don't think any of the three NEED

to win Iowa (as long as they stay in the 1-2-3 spot in all four of the early states heading into Feb. 5th). Each campaign has $$ and organization to keep going until Super Duper Tuesday and have locked in support in some states that go on the 5th. Only if there is an implosion in Iowa/Nevada/NH/SC (or a lower than third finish) do I see a problem before February 5th.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. Obama, Edwards and Iowa.

Like most things, it's a matter of degree how their relative finish there will effect the national race. But it is common knowledge that Edwards put a lot of his eggs in the Iowa basket and that was a political gamble, probably a smart one actually. But like with all gambles sometimes one wins and sometimes one loses. When you win a big stakes gamble the pay off can be sizable, but losing has real consequences also and Edwards bet more on Iowa than anyone else. If this were a game of roulette I would say that Edwards has a much larger percentage of his chips riding on his ball landing in Iowa than either Clinton or Obama do.

The other thing is that 1-2-3 ranking thing you referred to, and how much the Iowa results will immediatly matter, assunming that the three leading candidates are all polling inside that leading pack heading into other early states. If the spread between the top three is very tight, then it matters a little less where one falls within those rankings. If there are steep drop offs in polling support from one slot to another, losing Iowa AND ranking a somewhat weak third nationally, as in the case now for Edwards, prior to the Iowa results coming in could cripple Edwards especially when they did. If either Edwards or Obama is seen to be lagging far back in third after Iowa, they risk bleeding supoprt to their non Clinton rival, as voters who want to defeat Hillary close ranks behind the candidate who then seems most viable as a Clinton alternative.

Sadly, as a Clark supporter, I sat through watching how Iowa results shifted the dynamics of the race significantly in 2004. For Clark, he took an immediate hard hit in his New Hampshire support tracable only to new momentum coming out of Iowa results causing many voters to suddenly shift toward Kerry and Edwards. I agree that Iowa may not be as important in 2008 as it was in 2004, but in 2004 Edwards blew well past the smart money expectations for him that were conventional wisdom until at least a few days before the actual caucus. Edwards was an upside surprise in 2004 coming in second in Iowa. If anything the opposite would be true in Iowa for Edwards in 2008, but especially if he came in third there or second to anyone other than Clinton.


edited to make this post better able to stand alone as a personal journal entry (in case anyone is curious).

[BeyondGeography]

6. Smartly worded...people are looking for electability and the potential for meaningful change

[Ethelk2044]

8. It is nice to see. Go Obama!

[Debi]

9. I hope Fischer's endorsement doesn't 'help' Obama the way it did Tom Vilsack's presidential campaign

http://www.essentialestrogen.com/2007/09/gordon_fischer_issues_new_endo.html

[flpoljunkie]

10. Sure, you do. Vilsack was only a placeholder for Hillary, now he's a lame attack dog.

[Debi]

11. Are you implying that Obama is just a place-holder for Clinton?

I'm just not a fan of Tom Vilsack and hope Gordon's pompous behavior doesn't turn folks off (I also think it's funny that Gordon would think nobody remembered that he already endorsed a candidate for president).

This is not the big endorsement of the day for Obama - the Corrections Officers in New York is BIG (since they are from a competitors state) give them the DU-time, not Gordon Fischer.

[flpoljunkie]

12. No, I am not.

[Debi]

13. I know you weren't, just the way you wrote your post implied that.

:hi:

[illinoisprogressive]

14. CNN just did a story on Clinton being the least electable of the top 3

[Inspired]

15. Actually, I could care less who Gordon endorses.

But I'm also surprised he chose Obama. I thought it would be Clinton.

[Colobo]

17. With Obama, the Nation wins.

[zulchzulu]

16. The Obama Iowa ground game just got a lot stronger

K&R!

[Capn Sunshine]

18. "electability, ability to be a change agent and policies."

That's what we all think. :)