Edwards goes all-in on Iowa

Realizing that he does not have the same cash arnsenal at his disposal as Clinton or Obama, John Edwards' campaign is positioning itself to make an all-or-nothing run at Iowa.  Evidence of this strategy is illustrated by the campaign's lack of emphasis on California, an all-or-nothing delegate state that votes on February 5th.  An Associated Press article today explained that Edwards is the only top-tier candidate not to have a paid political staff in Arnold's state:

Even New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who will officially announcehis candidacy in Los Angeles on Monday, has a small paid staff in thestate.

By contrast, Edwards, the former North Carolina senator and 2004vice presidential candidate, has no campaign office or paid politicalstaff in the state, though two fundraising firms are on his payroll.

The logic behind this strategy is if Edwards stretches himself thin by putting too much money into other states, he will not have the funds to compete in Iowa.  But if he puts almost all of his resources into all of Iowa's 99 counties, he could win the state, giving him a surge of media attention in every local newspaper across the country, quite possibly propelling him to win in New Hampshire and beyond.

So far, Edwards' ground campaign in Iowa is working.  In the latest Zogby Poll given to likely Iowa Caucus voters, Edwards finished in first place.

The problem for Edwards is that the campaigns of Obama and Hillary also understand Iowa's importance, and will likely pump more money into the state -- in a sense, daring Edwards to go even more top-heavy this primary season.

What this all means is the Democratic candidates will spend a combined total of about $100 million on winning Iowa -- mostly in response to Edwards' top-heavy strategy.  After Iowa, either Edwards will be the front-runner or he will be out of the race.