Edwards pulling out some Nevada staffers

John Edwards' presidential campaign in Nevada took a beating Wednesday with news that it was moving a few staffers to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., responded with a stern warning not to "ignore" his state. Other candidates rushed to declare their continued commitment to Nevada. The Republican National Committee even took the opportunity to ridicule the former North Carolina senator.

"LEAVING LAS VEGAS," the Republican statement crowed. "John Edwards' Staff Packing Their Bags And Moving Out Of Nevada."

Edwards' campaign, however, said reports of a total pullout from Nevada were greatly exaggerated.

Edwards will still have a staff here and two functioning offices, the campaign said; it's just that a few people were reassigned out of strategic necessity. But Edwards is sticking to a "four-state strategy" that includes Nevada, hoping that winning the earliest contests will give him momentum to help him win more delegate-rich states later.

"Our strategy is unchanged: four states and $40 million," Edwards' deputy campaign manager, Jonathan Prince, said. "As the calendar fluctuates, with Iowa and New Hampshire moving up significantly, we need to accelerate hiring there to hit our organizing targets, so we're shifting some trained staffers there, but we are as committed as ever to winning Nevada."

Iowa and New Hampshire, the traditional early presidential nominating states, are expected to move their contests into early January, before Nevada's new scheduled Jan. 19 caucuses. Nevada would then be the third Democratic contest, instead of the second, as originally scheduled.

The Edwards campaign wouldn't say how many staffers were being moved or how many would remain in Nevada. In late June, the campaign told the Review-Journal it had 20 full-time staff on the ground here, but in recent weeks it has stopped giving out staff numbers.

Edwards' Nevada spokesman, Adam Bozzi, characterized the number of staffers leaving as "a handful" and wouldn't be more specific. He said he and state director Bill Hyers would be staying.

"Our offices are open, our campaign is active, John Edwards will be back," Bozzi said. "I don't think you'll see any change."

Sources said the campaign's trip director, Oscar Lopez, would probably be one of those moved, but that field director Preston Elliot left some time ago for a plum job in Washington, not because of campaign changes.

Bozzi said the principal infusion of staff would be in Iowa, also a caucus rather than a primary state, where "we need people who are trained and ready to work."

The questions Wednesday were whether Edwards' change in emphasis was a death knell either for his campaign or for the Nevada caucus, a newcomer that still has to prove its significance nationally.

Jennifer Duffy, an analyst for the Washington-based Cook Political Report, said the answer to both was no, but that both Edwards and Nevada would be damaged by the perception that Nevada may be a state that a Democratic contender could afford to lose.

Although Edwards says he has as much money as he needs, Duffy said that "if all they need is more bodies in Iowa, if they had the resources, they'd just hire them. That they are moving people shows that they don't."

Besides being short on cash -- Edwards' campaign had raised $23 million through June, versus $63 million for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and $59 million for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. -- Edwards needs to shore up his operation in Iowa, Duffy said.

After being the Democrats' vice presidential nominee in 2004, Edwards almost immediately started building an Iowa operation, and for a while he was out front in the state despite lagging in national polls. But that has changed, Duffy noted.

A University of Iowa poll this month put Clinton at 27 percent, and Obama and Edwards both at 22 percent.

"For two and a half years, he was in Iowa by himself," Duffy said. "He staked his claim (to the nomination) on it. Now there are other people in the field there, and his lead is slipping. He's got to get some of that back."

She added, "If he wants to win Nevada, he needs to still be in the game by Nevada."

At the same time, Edwards may have been too optimistic about his chances in Nevada to begin with. Many outsiders believed Edwards' strongly pro-labor rhetoric would get him union support, including that of Nevada's powerful Culinary union, but he has discovered he can't count on that.

"Even nationally, it's a false assumption that John Edwards is labor's candidate. Labor is absolutely shopping, and they are not going to sign on (to a candidate) anytime soon," Duffy said. "If Edwards came into Nevada thinking he would have Culinary and (the Service Employees International Union) all wrapped up, he quickly found out that wasn't true."

Culinary has hosted the top Democratic candidates multiple times and is giving no indication whom it will eventually pick. And Culinary, a growing service union, is different from the declining industrial unions to whom Edwards appeals most, Duffy said.

A Review-Journal poll in June found Clinton leading with 39 percent of Nevada Democratic caucus-goers, Obama with 17 percent and Edwards with 12 percent.

Nevada's first-time caucus effort faces constant insecurity about whether it is the player that backers want it to be. On the one hand, the state gets nowhere near the amount of attention that Iowa and New Hampshire do, but on the other hand, it gets more attention from Democrats than most other states and much more than in past nominating cycles.

"The nominating process is a mess," said University of Nevada, Reno, political scientist Eric Herzik. "If Nevada is going to be No. 3 or No. 4 instead of being No. 2, our clout is going to diminish somewhat."

But Reid and the other Democratic campaigns pushed back hard against the notion that Edwards' move might signal Nevada not counting in the nominating process.

"I have always said that for a Democrat to win the White House, they have to win the West," Reid said Wednesday. "Any candidate who chooses to ignore Nevada and its rich diversity does so at their own peril."

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who has sought to sell himself here as a Hispanic and Western candidate, echoed that, saying: "Though other campaigns may waver, I remain committed to campaigning in Nevada. I hired the first staff, opened the first office and made the first visit to Elko of any Democratic presidential candidate because I know that Nevada matters."

Richardson announced the hiring of seven Nevada staffers Wednesday. His campaign said that brings his total in the state to 32.

Clinton and Obama have so much money they can afford to run essentially national campaigns, including operations in the more than 20 states voting on Feb. 5.

In Nevada, Clinton spokeswoman Hilarie Grey said the campaign has "several dozen" staffers throughout the state and is poised to open offices outside Las Vegas and Reno. "Our campaign sees Nevada as the cornerstone of her (Clinton's) Western strategy," Grey said.

Obama "could not be more committed to getting to know the people of Nevada," spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.

The Obama campaign said that as of July 1, it had 30 Nevada staffers. It is the only campaign with an office in Elko and this week began airing Spanish-language radio ads.

"Nevada can't be Iowa the first time out of the block, but it's getting a lot of attention," Duffy, the analyst, said.

That's good for the state Democratic Party, but does it matter to the candidates seeking the nomination?

"We don't know. That's the problem with this being Nevada's first go at this," she said. "The process of winning the nomination is an algorithm. It's 90 percent a math problem and 10 percent a perception problem."