John Edwards, the Washington-based Politico reports, is hoping New Hampshire will help him "stay alive".
The Edwards campaign had to be happy with the headline. Every since a University of New Hampshire poll showed Edwards slipping 10 points and dangerously close to being overcome by Bill Richardson, his campaign has put a renewed focus on the state.
Edwards visited a group of liberal activists two weeks ago and said New Hampshire would see more of him. His wife quickly returned last Friday to do some community service in Milford. His campaign says they are going to bring more staff to the state.
All of this is an attempt to change the storyline about Edwards among Democrats that Edwards either hates the state or certainly doesn't respect it's process of electing a president. (Don't forget in 2004 Edwards had his worst performance, fourth place, in the state.)
As one person who worked for Edwards this year said on the condition it do not use their name, this storyline "Isn't exactly right, but not necessarily wrong either".
It is true that Edwards has visited New Hampshire more times since the 2004 election than any Democratic candidate, but most of those trips were in 2005 and 2006.
He rarely courts local legislative leaders in the state as they are accustomed, but he does have one of the most prestigious steering committees of these leaders.
But a better example of the "Edwards not getting N.H." storyline could be found in the Politico story.
Ironically, Edwards advisers decided to show their commitment to New Hampshire by talking to a Washington publication. Second, their rationale for winning New Hampshire is to "differentiate himself by stressing a message of economic fairness that could appeal to the lower-income and union voters who are essential to his success."
New Hampshire has the lowest poverty rate in the nation and union membership also one of the lowest in the country at 10.1 percent, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.