What else can Hillary Clinton’s come-from-behind victory–and John Edwards’s dismal third-place showing–in New Hampshire last night mean for the former, one-term Senator from North Carolina other than that he must now drop out of the race? This might seem counterintuitive in the lead up to the South Carolina Democratic primary, to be held on January 26th, where Edwards is presumed to have favor with voters because it’s his own neighborhood. But the latest poll from South Carolina shows Barack Obama with 42 percent, Clinton with 30 percent and Edwards with a dismal 14 percent. The poll was published Monday, before Clinton’s resounding New Hampshire win, so it’s probable that she’ll pick up even more support from Obama, and possibly Edwards as well. To avoid a crushing, embarassing coda to his already lackluster political career, Edwards should probably just call it quits now.
Contentions
One Response to “Edwards’s End”
June 2013
-
Articles
-
The Case for Drones
Kenneth AndersonThe United States can now wage war in a more nimble, low-risk, and humane fashion than ever before.
-
The ObamaCare Blame Game
Tevi Troy
Fiction
-
Past Due
Christine Sneed
Politics & Ideas
-
Gray Matter Chatter
Robert HerrittA review of Sally Satel and Scott O. Lilienfeld's Brainwashed
-
Vali of Doom
Sohrab Ahmari -
Beyond Good, Quite Evil
Andrew Roberts
Culture & Civilization
-
Exit Laughing
Rick Richman -
How Hitler Destroyed German Music
Terry Teachout -
Widow's Peak
Fernanda Moore -
Turncoat in a Toga
Stephen Daisley -
The Los Angeles Times Earthquake
Andrew Ferguson
John Podhoretz
-
The Second-Term Curse
John Podhoretz
Threat Assessment
-
Disappearing Red Lines
Jonathan S. Tobin
Letters
-
Republican Recovery
Our ReadersResponses to Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner's "How to Save the Republican Party"
Enter Laughing
-
Get Our Free Newsletter
Yes, I sure wish Hamas agents would identify themselves so it would be easier to shoot them as well.
If only they would fight fair, this would be over in 10 minutes and they would all be dead. Damn them.
Another dumb one from Totten.
Im still trying to find out the location of the school. were there students inside at the time? because if the school was in the outskirts of gaza then the whole area wasa de facto battlesone and people wuld know not to go there.
I might as well say it: my suspicion is the IDF knows this and wants to show hamas “using a school”.
Maybe I’m suffering from undue optimism, but is it possible that once this war is over- with, let’s pray, Hamas thrown out of Gaza- that the news of how Hamas put the population of Gaza in peril will tamp down Palestinian support for terror? I’m not pointing to the possibility that Palestinians will hate Israel less, but might come to see how profoundly twisted, cowardly, and dangerous these terrorists are to Palestinians themselves. Of course, if this insane love affair with terrorists ends, it will be because Israel finally acted against Hamas.
Maybe I’m suffering from undue optimism, but is it possible that once this war is over- with, let’s pray, Hamas thrown out of Gaza- that the news of how Hamas put the population of Gaza in peril will tamp down Palestinian support for terror?
The only thing that has and will teach that lesson is overwhelming defeat. They must be made to realize that their lives are bad because of the terror. Problem is that the world seems intent on not letting them learn that lesson by making Israel fight with two arms and two legs tied byhind their backs. While there has been a steady trickle of reports that Hamas rule has been no picnic, only allowing Israel a resounding military AND POLITICAL victory will ever get the Arabs to learn their lessons. Until then, they will keep taking as many bites out of the apple as they are allowed.
Israel will be blamed and that is where the anger and hate will be directed, not at the Hamasholes who got them into the mess in the first place. Look at what happened in Lebanon for all you need to know about the affect of the same results in Gaza. So far Israel appears to have learned from some of its mistakes, so there is some reason for mild optimism, but give the world a chace to take away any gains Israel makes.
you guys think that attacking and killing 1,000 gazans will INCREASE gazan support for israel?
are you insane?
This isn’t a fight. Israel could take on Iran and half the middle east by itself and come out the victor.
This is Israel’s right wing and Hammas adding another sad chapter to this story with many current and future innocent victims paying the price.
“only allowing Israel a resounding military AND POLITICAL victory will ever get the Arabs to learn their lesson”
Way to use the logic of a school yard boy. I think i saw more complicated thinking from a cartoon once. Grow up and grow a pair.
This idea that Israel can fix what happened in Lebanon by taking on a lesser foe and really taking it to them in gaza would be laughable if it were not so tragic.
Everyone loses as it stands now.
Poor Lester, it’s you who are insane. Asking whether it will increase Gazan support for Israel is asinine. Gazans can’t support Israel with Hamas in charge. Any who do get killed. Trying to make nice with people who want to destroy you is a losing, self-defeating proposition. No one in Gaza can even think about co-existing with Israel until the terrorists who have taken over their society can no longer threaten and terrorize them. Will many of them hate Israel if Israel kills a lot of Palestinians? Of course. But they already do. First step to peace is to get rid of the poison inside Palestinian society. Then perhaps it can begin to develop more normally, start to flourish, and even consider the economic and other advantages of having normal relations with its neighbor.
Ah yes, about that school….
Here’s a hint about what might have happened to it.
J Lichty,
Right on.
Give war a chance for a change.
Don;t let the ‘peace processors’ reset the game board for the arabs, for the eleventh time.
War should be a clarifying event, and for all other nations, it is.
Jews aren’t allowed to wage wars, though, just as they were not allowed to own land or employ non-Jews for a thousand years in Europe.
IF Israel is illegitimate, then Israeli self defense is illegitimate, goes the internal processing of these great humanitarians, and must be curtailed at every opportunity – using the fine words of disproportionality, war crimes, humanitarian disaster, etc etc etc ad nauseum et regurgitatum.
#1: “If only they would fight fair, this would be over in 10 minutes and they would all be dead. [...]Another dumb one from Totten.”
You have missed his point.
It was not about military tactics: it was a legal point.
#6: “This is Israel’s right wing and Hammas adding another sad chapter “‘
Somebody has misinformed you.
Israel has a center-left government at the moment.
And Hamas is spelled with one “m”.
Frank: Another dumb one from Totten.
I may be dumb, but those who wrote the Geneva Conventions and the Law of Armed Conflict aren’t.
Thanks Michael. Stay clear-eyed, and beholden to neither camp.
Because clearly, not attacking Gazans has worked SO WELL.
To the group who has failed to study war and its purpose, let me suggest that your comments show you the fool. The Palestinians have never had to understand the ramifications of conflict. That people die and your government disappears and you lose everything. I guess you could argue it happened at Israel’s founding, but that would be a stretch.
They have been taught that with some blood shed you can gain some incremental advantages until the next round when you can gain some more. Ask the Germans and the Japanese about the concept of war and I would guess you would see a much healthier understanding of its purpose.
Hamas says they are at war – OK, lets fight a war, since Hamas is the governing body of Gaza and Hamas wishes Israel’s anilihation, and has taken aggrssive actions towards her, declare the war, fight it, win it, hang the leadership like we did to the Nazis and the Japanese Militaristic factions, then rebuild it.
Hamas is committing three war crimes
1-targeting Israeli civilians, using Palestinian civilians as human shields,
2-seeking the destruction of a member state of the United Nations -
3- and that Israel is acting in self-defense and out of military necessity, the conflict will continue.
Total defeat of the Palestinians is impossible. Due to demographics, any Israeli victory has a shelf life of a few months or a few years at most. Furthermore, as American power wanes (IF it wanes as forecast by all the “experts”), Israel’s supply lines get longer and longer, its philosophical and moral support weakens. The Palestinians think in decades and centuries, not years and months. It took 300 years to expel the crusades. If you can’t convince them to accept Israel, they will never give up. Hint: Speaking like Rambo and bombing them into submission are probably not good ways to convince them. Second hint: shorten your supply lines and diversify your friendships, America may not always be there for you. There is an optimistic scenario for Israel but as the philosopher Clint Eastwood once said “a man’s gotta know his limitations” (in this case, a nation)
Of course Hamas commits criminal acts. This is entirely uncontroversial–who would contend otherwise? This post is just another in a long series of commentaries that ignore the issues that actually matter. You’re all so worried about justifying Israel’s behavior, that you never stop to ask if they will actually achieve their war aims. I can all but assure you that Israel will not defeat Hamas, if by Hamas we mean organized militant rejectionism. They can kill all the Hamas footsoldiers and destroy all the weapons stocks they please, but if civilians die in the process the PR victory goes to Hamas. And since civilians die in every war, no matter how scrupulous the combatants, the outcome is certain: Hamas will benefit. The only solution is political. End the blockade, restore sovereignty. Give the Palestinians something to live for, and they will choose life. And don’t say “we’ve already tried that,” because Israel has not (see: btselem.org/English/Gaza_Strip). Try it, see what happens.
To #6 Frank
“Israel could take on Iran and half the middle east by itself and come out the victor.”
Maybe in an air war with nukes. On the ground, I doubt it. Have you seen population figures? I would love to see you explain your “victor” scenario, Frankie Frank.
LogicMan, you hit upon an excellent point. If Israel is never to have peace because we are not willing to let them really see if war can settle its disputes with the Muslims, because it would be bloody indeed, then what are we to do? Egypt and Jordan found a solution. Why won’t the rest?
If death of their culture and government cannot persuade them to call off the attack – why would any negotiations do the same.
While Israel would have a problem with a front mouth smash attack with Iran, I believe we would find pretty much the same result the US found with Iraq. Iran is talked up big, but really isn’t so hot. I am afraid you will have to let this go.
I remember a very chilling paragraph in the beginning of a book called I think Lucifer’s Hammer. A comet or asteroid hits the earth in its northern hemisphere and completely derails civilization. It makes a reference that in the middle east, free from their political protectors, the Arabs and Jews finally settle their centuries old grievences with clubs and knives.
May the lord save us. I am convinced that either the state of Israel will be required to move, or many Muslims must die. Once Iran has the bomb, the issue will be forced.
albie “Poor Lester, it’s you who are insane. Asking whether it will increase Gazan support for Israel is asinine. Gazans can’t support Israel with Hamas in charge. Any who do get killed. Trying to make nice with people who want to destroy you is a losing, self-defeating proposition. No one in Gaza can even think about co-existing with Israel until the terrorists who have taken over their society can no longer threaten and terrorize them. Will many of them hate Israel if Israel kills a lot of Palestinians? Of course. But they already do. First step to peace is to get rid of the poison inside Palestinian society.”
but hamas have only been in charge for a couple years. there have been intifadas since before hamas even existed and palestinians have in genral always been opposed to israel
With each new paroxysm of hideous violence between Israelis and Palestinians, I become more convinced that the rest of the world will not put up with this insanity forever. At some point, supporters of each side will say, it’s just not worth it.
The arrogance and presumption of Israelis and Palestinians is that they believe they can do whatever they want and their supporters will not turn away from them. It never dawns on them that the world will get fed up with their act. Through their actions, Israelis and Palestinians show that they don’t care about the rest of the world. Why should the rest of the world care about them?
The best policy toward both Israelis and Palestinians is to stop the enabling, to throw up our hands and walk away. Then, the only options left to them will be peace — or mutual destruction.
If Palestinians are asked to stand on the tops of houses to prevent Israelis from bombing, are they not declaring themselves enemy combatants by definition? They are definitely voluntary participants in a war.
I wish I understood the Palestinian point of view better. I emailed a fellow RED Camera enthusiast who is a Palestinian living in Lebanon. Nice fellow but he got really upset when I asked why Palestinians could not run their own state. They are still angry about having their land taken from them to form Israel. I can understand this but would think this kind of thinking would get awfully old after 50 years of it.
When I’m treated badly by people, I tend to forget about it and move on. I don’t think revenge is worth ruining your life for. If the Palestinians only had that attitude I think we’d be living in a much better world today.
D
D
To Matt #16:
“The only solution is political. End the blockade, restore sovereignty. Give the Palestinians something to live for, and they will choose life. And don’t say “we’ve already tried that,” because Israel has not (see: btselem.org/English/Gaza_Strip). Try it, see what happens.”
Well, they actually did, and Arafat said “no thanks, I’d rather keep fighting Israel than give my people real peace.” (my paraphrase) Remember Camp David in 2000? They got nearly every single thing they had asked for and still rejected it.
How do you think the State of Palestine would look today, eight years later, if Arafat had said yes?
Kelly, your knowledge of Camp David is rather superficial.
I would recommend this account from one of the participants, Robert Malley: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380
Having taken a small seminar course with Malley, I can’t overemphasize his compassion for Israel and his understanding of Israel’s security concerns. That said, he is a great deal more balanced than Dennis Ross.
What would a State of Palestine look like today, had Arafat accepted the “generous offer”? The answer is as clear now as it was then: it would be a state without sovereignty, bisected by an Israeli security corridor and with Israeli troops still positioned along the Jordan river valley, a state without control over its own borders, airspace, or waterways. Furthermore, Arafat didn’t say “no thanks” but, “the current plan is unacceptable, let’s keep negotiating.” And they did, at Taba, until Sharon was elected and he withdrew the negotiators. Thus ended the Camp David affair.
My knowledge may be superficial, but reading the article you posted really didn’t change my view that Arafat dropped the ball more than Clinton or Barak during the negotiations. Every negotiation includes one or more sides declaring “That is my best offer! I won’t concede anything more!” but it is all a ploy that both sides know is designed to force the other side to make a move one way or the other. To simply say “No” to all offers without counter proposals is not negotiating; it’s overstating your positional authority to the point that your credibility is lost. Of course, I understand why Arafat held that position; to the Palestinians, Israel was illegitimate and acquiescence only meant granting them legitimacy. But at the same time, the same love for ‘international legality’ means they are a non-nation, non-state of territory captured from two real states who want nothing to do with them and they must accept that fact.
Now you raise a point that’s the elephant in the room nobody ever talks about. How can you possibly have a state with sovereignty that’s cut in two? It’s impossible, unless you consider what may be becoming the de-facto standard for ‘Palestine’; the nation of West Bank Palestine and the nation of Gaza Strip Palestine. If the issue is their sovereignty, let each determine their own destiny instead of the impossibility of a single Palestinian nation.
Or, let Egypt and Jordan administer them as before 1967: http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=47FAC3FF-A499-4DC2-8308-60D4C0116FE7
Да уж… Тут как говорят люди: Апрель с водой, а май с травой
Хорошая статья. Кое-что новое узнал для себя. Автору респект и уважуха