Senator Edwards,

Having watched the debate in South Carolina tonight (January 21, 2008), I have these comments for you.

If your Party wants to continue the Republican occupation of the White House in 2009, then it should nominate Hillary Clinton for the Presidency. I’ll explain why in a moment. Sadly, despite your best efforts, that is exactly what your Party seems intent on doing.

Obviously, you face strong competition from Barack Obama as well. Unfortunately, your message has been fading since Iowa and the results have been reflected in the polls. All is not lost, but you are going to have some major adjustments quickly. You showed some flashes of those adjustments last night, but more is needed to make yourself and Senator Obama the two leading contenders.

Why am I writing this? Because I think that electing a Republican President this November is rewarding bad behavior and enabling the continued assault on our personal liberties. Nominating Clinton instead of you or Obama will be the thing that will enable that Republican victory the easiest of all. In addition, I want to see candidates nominated who have the best potential of reducing polarization both during and after the election.

Why should you listen to me? Why not? If what I write here doesn’t make sense to you, then don’t use it. If it does, then what do you have to lose? At any rate, here is what I would do if I were you.

First, start posing the hard questions to voters at these debates. Such as: Are you going to cast your vote to make yourself feel good or to pick the candidate who’s going to win in November? Is your ultimate goal to deny the Republicans the White House in 2009? Then who is the candidate who best accomplishes that goal? You and I both know the answer to that question, Senator. Polls show you are the one Democratic candidate who beats all the Republican candidates. You brought that up tonight. You could make it more effective by making people confront how they will feel and what will happen if a new Republican wins in November. (“Don’t be caught with your head down the day after the election saying to yourself we could have nominated John Edwards.”)

Second, you must start bringing up Hillary Clinton’s negatives in the same way you would confront a hostile witness in a trial. The key to Democrats winning in November will be making the lead issue the incompetent performance of the Republican Party and how unsuited they are to lead this country from 2009 and beyond. That discussion simply cannot occur if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. Senator Clinton is just too polarizing a figure to enable an open minded debate to take place in the general election. Your handlers are going to say you should avoid confronting Hillary, that it’s a negative for you. I say it’s a risk you must take. Otherwise you’re going to lose to her, anyway. I believe that if you and your campaign present the choice properly, then you’ll be seen as the person who brought the Party to its senses and rewarded with the nomination.

Third, you must expose Hillary’s prime weakness as a candidate. Hillary Clinton would be an inadequate Commander in Chief. She has weaknesses in attitude and comprehension of National Defense. She’s using her membership on the Senate Armed Services Committee to mask those weaknesses, but they still exist. If your own staff cannot identify those weaknesses, then call me and I will help you. She tried to play the “best prepared on national defense” card last night. Obama challenged her, but not in a way that reveals how truly inadequate she is in this area, probably because his own comprehension of the area is not that much better than hers.

Fourth, you need to have new material. Again, you did better on that tonight than what I have seen in the last two weeks or so. We get it that you are passionate about opposing the entrenched interests who have exploited the middle and lower classes. We share your anger that America is a country where a man had to wait 50 years to have his cleft palate repaired and be able to speak. America wants to know what else you’re passionate about. Further, you need to tell America about your goals in terms of the vision you have for us as a people instead of the fights you want to have. Americans want inspiration, not conflict, if at all possible.

I’ve heard you say that not all corporations are bad. Shouldn’t you also be talking about supporting small business and how your healthcare reforms will help small business? Some people who work in health care are likely concerned that universal health care will result in loss of jobs for them at a time when the economy seems uncertain. That same sentiment probably applies to the other industries you have targeted like drugs and energy. Still others are concerned that universal healthcare means the supposed evil of “socialized medicine” will be instituted. Shouldn’t you be addressing those concerns?

There’s a new book out called Free Lunch that should provide you with a number of ideas about things to talk about that prove your notion that the middle and lower classes in this country have been taken advantage of. Americans are not victims of circumstance, but that doesn’t mean they should bury their heads in the sand in the face of the system being deliberately rigged against them. Not resisting economic unfairness is the true victim mentality, so let’s resist.

Do you realize there is a huge section of undecided voters that you are not reaching? This section of voters cuts across all the demographics you can name. That’s the bad news. The good news is that none of the other candidates are reaching these undecided voters, either. You can be the first to attract them. All you have to do is steal a page from Ross Perot and UPS. Once again, if you or your staff cannot identify this group of unidentified voters or decipher the hint I’ve given you, then feel free to contact me through my web site at www.KindredMindsEnt.com or my blog at www.TheCenterStrikesBack.com.

As far as your competition with Senator Obama goes, I believe the adjustments I’m recommending to you will make you a more appealing candidate than he is. Perhaps he might be interested in being your Vice Presidential candidate and positioning himself as your heir apparent in 2012.

Regardless of whether you or Senator Obama is the nominee, the greater good will be the exponentially lowered probability of a Republican winning the November election.

Respectfully,

Larry R. Bradley

P.S. The reasons I am so adamant as an Independent voter about the defeat of the Republicans in this coming election are in my blog at www.TheCenterStrikesBack.com. You and your staff may be particularly interested in my “Open Letter to “Other Than Republican” Voters” entry.