Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi calls for national unification the day after the historic election, while Al Qaeda impotently calls for further violence. We all saw how "effective" Al Qaeda was at preventing the vote, so we can assume that they will do no better with this threat. Of course, they can bring on the violence, but the democratic rubicon has been crossed, and Iraqis are not likely to be listening too intently to the Al Qaeda thugs at this point.

Sen. Hillary Clinton fainted today prior to a scheduled speech on Social Security:

She received medical attention at the scene and then went on to give another speech at a Catholic college Monday afternoon.

"It wasn't as dramatic as it sounds," Clinton said after the 30-minute speech.

Clinton aides said doctors believed she had a stomach virus. They said she felt weak at the private club where she was to speak, needed to sit down, and then fainted briefly.

Clinton, 57, was smiling when she walked out of the club, the general manager said.

Glad to see that she recovered quickly and is doing well.

Charles Krauthammer writes that rarely in our political system is the nomination of a cabinet official used by political opponents of an administration as a vehicle to make a wider attack on its policies. He argues that this is precisely what the Democrats who opposed and delayed Condoleeza Rice's nomination did, and that it is a highly risky course of action.

It is appropriate - and necessary - that an opposition party express criticism of the administration when criticism is due, especially in matters of war, provided it is done in a manner that does not endanger the troops or damage the mission. Anyone who argues otherwise is a blind partisan, and I will gladly part company with him or her. But the Democratic party is not expressing responsible criticism of the war. The criticism appears to most reasonable people to have just one goal: Damage the despised George W. Bush.

If they want to oppose her that is their right, but the appropriate vehicle for criticism of the war was not the delay of the confirmation of Rice as secretary of state. The delay served no purpose, as there were no questions about her qualifications, and no credible charges against her of either malfeasance or lack of integrity. It probably did damage to the diplomatic efforts of the United States in the continuing war on terror. The week before the election in Iraq was too important to have a postponement of her final confirmation unless the most extraordinary circumstances arose involving serious and credible charges against Rice. None arose. That is not likely to be forgotten by a very large number of Americans.

There was one person who realized the mistake in opposing Rice:

Among the list of Democrats who did vote for Rice is Hillary Clinton, steadily moving to the center with her relatively hawkish work on the Armed Services Committee, her recent conciliatory speech on abortion and now her unwillingness to go over the cliff in opposing the Rice nomination.

Who has the politics of this right? My guess is: Hillary, as usual.

Hillary knows. You can take that to the bank.

Al Jazeera has aired a videotape that purports to show a British transport plane, which crashed north of Baghdad yesterday, being shot down:

The video, issued by the military wing of the 1920 Revolution Brigades, also showed an explosion at a distance and what appeared to be the debris of a plane on the ground. British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon said 10 servicemen were missing, believed killed, in Sunday's crash.

Al Jazeera said it had received a copy of the tape from the group, which has claimed responsibility for some attacks and kidnappings in the past, without giving further details.

A reminder to those visiting on the Firefox browser: I am aware the site is looking distorted. Sekimori is going to be doing a complete redesign of Powerpundit that will eliminate that. The site will look uniform, regardless of the browser being used. This will be fully completed within 10-15 days. Thanks for your patience.

All the Democrats have to say, the day after the historic election in Iraq, is to challenge Mr. Bush to outline an "exit strategy?" This was once the party of FDR, Truman and Kennedy? (John!)

I can't say enough that I'd like to see two strong parties in this country, but if these two keep opening their mouths then the Democrats are destined to be in the political wilderness for at least a generation.

Ouch!

Jan. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Billionaire investor George Soros, the biggest financial contributor to the failed effort to defeat President George W. Bush in November's election, said Democratic challenger John Kerry was a flawed candidate.

Soros, chairman of Soros Fund Management LLC, spent $26 million in last year's campaign that he said was undermined by the candidate he supported.

``Kerry did not, actually, offer a credible and coherent alternative,'' Soros, 74, said yesterday in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. ``That had a lot to do with Bush being re-elected.''

The comments by the Hungarian-born Soros marked his sharpest criticism of Kerry, a Vietnam War veteran who later spoke against the war and focused his campaign against Bush on the war in Iraq. Republicans gained four seats in the Senate, including the defeat of the Senate's highest-ranking Democrat, Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota. Republicans have 55 seats in the 100-seat chamber.

The Kerry campaign ``tried to emphasize his role as a Vietnam War hero and downplay his role as an anti-Vietnam War hero, which he was,'' said Soros. ``Had he admitted, owned up to it, I think actually the outcome could have been different.''

Soros said he also now questions ``what the Democratic party stands for.'' Democrats need to counter ``a very effective conservative message machine,'' he said. ``There really needs to be an alternative.''

Finally, a New York Times editorial that I agree with.

Why in the world was Peggy Noonan so critical of George W. Bush's inaugural address?

Some think that they know the reason.

Here is why I am glad that John Kerry is not sitting in the Oval Office - from Meet The Press Sunday:

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that Iraq is less a terrorist threat to the United States now than it was two years ago?

SEN. KERRY: No, it's more. And, in fact, I believe the world is less safe today than it was two and a half years ago. ..

Just a couple of minutes later in the interview:

MR. RUSSERT: Is the United States safer with the newly elected Iraqi government than we would have been with Saddam Hussein?

SEN. KERRY: Sure.

Yes, you read it correctly. You can believe your eyes. John Kerry - surprise (heh) - directly contradicted himself within the space of a minute or two.

This, of course, is the same John Kerry who voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it and changed his mind about thirteen times on whether we should have gone to war in Iraq.

If you are surprised at his contradicting himself during the Meet The Press interview then you just do not know John Kerry very well. Let us be very thankful that the Oval Office does not - and never will - know Mr. Kerry very well, either.

Jim Geraghty:

You are no longer the Democratic presidential nominee and the face, and most important voice, of your party anymore, Senator. You’re just the junior senator from Massachusetts.

And frankly, not only is the president not listening, I’m not sure how many Democrats are listening, senator. They’re either preferring Ted Kennedy’s full-throated get-out-now rhetoric, or praising this as “a great day”. This heavy-hearted, deeply concerned, disaster-could-be-around-the-corner stuff wasn’t a big seller in November, and doesn’t seem to be a big seller now, either.

Even Dan Rather is declaring, “The Iraqis interim government, the U.S. military, and American diplomats had a good plan and carried it out well… the guerrilla war fighters suffered substantial loss in the election, both in fact and in perception. The momentum shifted in favor of the U.S. military and Iraqi forces a few months ago, and has accelerated in their direction with the election.”

And when we see something as extraordinary as today – well, for starters, it’s revealing that your first instinct after thanking the troops is to warn us to not “overhype” this. As if the primary concern at this hour is that Americans might pull a muscle celebrating the birth of democracy in a previously-oppressed Arab nation.

It’s also tremendously revealing that despite this appearance of positive developments, you insist that the real answer is to follow the proposals you’ve been laying out from the beginning. “A massive diplomatic effort.” “A much more significant outreach to the international community.”

Snore.

Applause for Jim Geraghty!

Indeed the Iraqis have broken through the barrier of fear, with with an estimated 8 million (60 percent) turning out to cast votes in the face of threats and boycott attempts:

Al Qaeda's Iraqi wing had declared war on the "infidel" polls, threatening an election day bloodbath.

But most Iraqis were undeterred.

Samir Hassan, 32, who lost his leg in a car bomb blast last year, said as he waited to vote in Baghdad: "I would have crawled here if I had to. I don't want terrorists to kill other Iraqis like they tried to kill me."

It is surprising to see a New York Times headline entitled "Voting, Not Violence, Is the Big Story on Arab TV," but even the Old Gray Lady cannot ignore the unmitigated success of Iraqi turnout on this historic day. (via Powerline)

A number of world leaders had praise for this historic event underway in Iraq. Yes, you read correctly - both France's Jacques Chirac and Germany's Gerhard Schroeder were positive in their comments, as did the UN's Kofi Annan.

And then there were the Democrats. John Kerry went on Meet The Press and could only manage to say that the election would have a "kind of legitimacy," and that the United States should not try to "overhype" the election. Iraqis, who braved threats of violence and actual violence, cannot be expected to warm up to those remarks made by Mr. Kerry. One can only assume that they sleep much better knowing that Mr. Kerry is not anywhere near the Oval Office.

That this election has been such a resounding success must be a slap in the face to Lefty Democrats, who have as their (and the entire party currently) most visible spokespersons Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer. Howard Dean is about to join this club as DNC chair. Numerous moderate Democrats, who are likely to be supportive of our actions in Iraq and today's historic vote, are not likely to be pleased with these three as the current visible faces of the Democratic party.

Some put it more bluntly:

Moderate Democrats must be puzzled and at least somewhat concerned that their leadership has allowed itself to become so infected with Bush hatred that they can no longer recognize opportunities to build trust with the American electorate on national security. The automatic gainsay of anything accomplished by the Bush administration has almost completely destroyed their credibility -- and the measured and intelligent reactions of Chirac, Schroeder, and Annan shows how badly the Democrats screwed up today.

How about that? The Democrats have stuck their neck out and taken a negative stance on the election in Iraq, while even Schroeder, Chirac and Annan have all been very positive. Who would ever have thought that the party of FDR, Truman and Kennedy (John!) would have come to its current state, with no sign whatsoever of a change on the horizon.

Congratulations Iraqis! You have made history and done yourselves proud before the entire world.

UPDATE:

None of this means that the insurgency in Iraq has finally been beaten down or that only plain sailing lies ahead. But the voter turnouts certainly suggests that the electoral results will stick. It will be very hard to de-legitimize the whole process or cast aside the ballots as if the elections had never happened; not after the sacrifice that the Shi'ites, Kurds and the Sunnis (the risk was all the greater for them) have endured simply to exercise their choice. Commentators have pointed out that elected candidates may subsequently express views which may be regarded as anti-American; but if the US, which is the occupying power, is to be bound by the result, as is consistent with the concept of the return of sovereignty to the Iraqi people, why should 'insurgents' or the Left be able to say 'I won't accept the elections as legitimate'? While that will not prevent them from dismissing the elections or making disparaging noises, all but the most obtuse will understand that they can't be undone and will move on instead to the next point of criticism. Which means the elections weren't a joke after all, except on Cole. And did we win? Who knows? But many Iraqis think they did.

And, of course:

I’m just glad I’m stupid enough to be hopeful. I’m glad I’m naive enough to suspect Iraqis actually wanted to vote. I’m very glad I’m not so aslosh with solipsistic hatred that any success in Iraq makes me trot out a cynical riposte so the rest of my buddies on Olympus will nod in wry assent. I’m glad that a picture of a mother holding her daughter to cast the ballot reminds me that this is number two in a series. All other things aside – which is a difficult thing to posit, I know – I’m glad to be on the side of holding elections. In the end I’m glad to be glad. And now I will go skip through the daisies and sing happy songs about bunnies, because I am obviously a fool. What was the cover story of the Village Voice I saw in the library today? “Bush’s plan to destroy the world.” Destroy it some more, George.

Election turnout may have been as high as 72 percent.

Despite six months of unnecessary "diplomatic gridlock" prior to the beginning of the Iraq war, that allowed a stronger insurgency to develop than would otherwise have occurred, Mark Steyn argues that Iraq is coming along fine:

When you consider the behavior of the Shia and Kurdish parties, they've been remarkably shrewd, restrained and responsible. They don't want to blow their big rendezvous with history and rejoin the rest of the Middle East in the fetid swamp of stable despotism. The naysayers in the Democratic Party and the U.S. media are so obsessed with Rumsfeld getting this wrong and Condi getting that wrong and Bush getting everything wrong that they've failed to notice just how surefooted both the Kurds and Shiites have been -- which in the end is far more important. The latter, for example, have adopted a moderate secular pitch entirely different from their co-religionist mullahs over the border. In fact, as partisan pols go, they sound a lot less loopy than, say, Barbara Boxer. Even on the Sunni side of the street, there are signs the smarter fellows understand their plans to destroy the election have flopped and it's time to cut themselves into the picture. The IMF noted in November that the Iraqi economy is already outperforming all its Arab neighbors.

Steyn is clearly in the column of those who believe that Condoleeza Rice may become president someday:

Bush won't abolish all global tyranny by 2008 -- that might have to wait till Condi's second term -- but he will abolish some of it, and today's elections are as important in that struggle as any military victory

The Democrats clearly believe this as well, which explains the hysterical efforts to knock her down by Boxer, Kennedy et al.

David Sands analyzes the expectations of Bush administration officials and others as Iraqis vote.

The full text of President Bush's statement on the election today from the White House.

Yikes. I just downloaded the Firefox 1.0 browser, since an increasing number of visitors who come to Powerpundit use this browser. I wanted to see how Powerpundit looks when using it. I see that things are a bit distorted, especially the banner, which is not centered but oriented way over to the left. My skimpy CSS and HTML skills are showing, as the site should look the same no matter which browser is being used. Sekimori is going to be doing a redesign of the site, which will be completed in the next two weeks. At that point, with regard to any distortions in the site, the words of Quintas Arrius from the movie Ben Hur are appropriate: "That Will Stop!"

By the way, when visiting Drudge I usually feel like I'm stepping into a minefield with all of the pop-up ads that get launched (despite pop-up stopper). Not a single pop-up ad appeared using the Firefox browser.

Abu Zarqawi's worst fear has arrived. Iraqis are voting, and they are braving deadly attacks and boycott calls to do so. George W. Bush is calling the vote a success.

The very sad news also arrives that a British Royal Air Force C-130 military transport plane has crashed. No details have been released on the number of deaths from the crash yet.

Also, Iraqi interim Interior Minister Falah al-Naqib said U.S. led forces could leave Iraq within 18 months.

Good, continuing coverage of the Iraqi election over at Friends of Democracy.