MOHAMMED AND OMAR: “The people have won.” Read the whole thing.

ANOTHER IRAQI VOTER proudly displays an ink-stained finger.

Sissy Willis observes: “You know what? This is the best thing ever for freedom and human happiness since the fall of the Berlin Wall.”

It’s certainly good news.

The ink-stained finger seems to becoming a potent image. Here’s another photo by Iraqi blogger Alaasmary.

And here’s one from Rose in Baghdad. (Both via The Corner).

UPDATE: The New York Times is even reporting a “party atmosphere” in Baghdad.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Chris Fountain notes that this paragraph keeps moving downward in the NYT story above, and he’s right — I’ve still got the old window open and it’s dropped several paragraphs. So here it is, in case it disappears:

But if the insurgents wanted to stop people in Baghdad from voting, they failed. If they wanted to cause chaos, they failed. The voters were completely defiant, and there was a feeling that the people of Baghdad, showing a new, positive attitude, had turned a corner.

At least give ’em credit for leading with it initially.

CIGARS IN THE SAND is photoblogging from the Baghdad polls. Here you see Iraqi men proudly displaying their inked fingers after voting. (Via Chester, who has lots of election coverage).

The Belmont Club has an interesting post, too, responding to predictable negativism from Juan Cole.

I’ll observe, as James Taranto did last week, that high turnout among the Afrikaners wasn’t seen as the test of the South African elections’ legitimacy. Likewise, high turnout in pro-Ba’ath areas shouldn’t be the test here.

Reader Peter Ingemi, meanwhile, offers a prediction:

I’m remembering the coy saying about the French resistance. “If everyone who claimed to be in the resistance really had been, there would have been nobody left to collaborate.”

I make the following prediction: In 20 or 25 years (it might not even take that long) all the people who where saying that the war was wrong and Iraq was wrong will talk about how America brought democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan and how they were a part of it due to their protests and desire for democracy and the end of tyranny. (of course they will not mention that the tyranny that they meant was us.) If the same people who write the current history books write them again be sure that this will happen.

Heh. Yeah, just like everybody pulled together during the Cold War.

CNN is reporting a 72% turnout. [Later: Some readers think that will turn out to be high, with the final number more like 60%. Still a lot, in the face of widespread death threats. We don’t to that well, very often, and the worst we have are long lines.]

Power Line: “Somehow, I had missed the fact that Iraqi expatriates are voting in Syria. Thus, Iraqis living in Syria can participate in a democratic process, but Syrians can’t. A bit odd, that, but it’s another example of the impact this election could have in the Arab world.” Yes, I imagine some Syrians are noticing.

Meanwhile, Robert Fisk appears in his usual role as punching bag. And he remains well-suited for it.

UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg is giving the media coverage a thumbs-down:

So far, I think the coverage has been moderately scandalous. This morning CNN kept its regularly scheduled medical show (though last night they were better, if mostly pre-taped). The major nets seemed to treat this like a fairly ho-hum story. I just walked over to my computer after seeing that the Today Show was offering viewers a segment on new shaving technologies for men.

If things were going badly, they’d be all over it, of course. More evidence that the elections are a success!

MORE: James Dwight:

The polls just closed, and there was 72% turnout with mimimal sporadic violence. The ball is now in the MSM’s court. Or, to use perhaps a more appropriate cliche, the Iraqi people have given the MSM plenty of rope.

John Cole, meanwhile, says that the “Damning But” was shut down by Iraqi voters and offers a challenge to bloggers.

And RantWraith has four words, while Yellowdogblog notes that even Reuters is having trouble generating negative spin.

FROM THE BBC REPORTERS’ LOG:

(Basra) People have been literally streaming towards polling stations. I have never witnessed this huge turnout for long time.

(Fallujah) A number of polling stations have opened in the city in the north, north-east, and inside the public park. The turnout to all these stations is very low.

(Baghdad) We have seen voting here in the capital, and in the streets close to the BBC office the atmosphere was almost euphoric.

One elderly Shiite man told us his two sons had been executed under Saddam and he was voting now to make sure there was no return to the old days.

Lots of interesting stuff there.

HEH: “Iraqi Voting Disrupts News Reports of Bombings.”

POLLS JUST OPENED IN IRAQ: And Roger Simon will be liveblogging the elections.

UPDATE: There’s more at the Iraq Election Wire.

And, of course, don’t forget Friends of Democracy. And scroll down for lots more links.

Call me a cynic, but the best sign that these elections are likely to succeed can be found in the U.N.’s positioning. (Via the blogad to the right).

JOHN COLE HAS A “DAMNING BUT” ROUNDUP that, despite its extensiveness, is probably just a foretaste of what’s to come.

THE BELGRAVIA DISPATCH has a big Iraqi elections post that’s worth reading.

UPDATE: More here, too.

ANOTHER UPDATE: And here’s another roundup page from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. (Via Eugene Volokh).

And here are some pictures of Iraqis voting in California.

MORE: Two predictions from Donald Sensing.

Read this, too.

STILL MORE: Thoughts on metrics for success, here.

IN RESPONSE TO MY EARLIER POST, lefty reader Joe McReynolds emails:

You rightly point out that we liberals must do our best to shout down, disassociate ourselves, do everything we can to make ourselves no longer the party of Michael Moore, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, et al.

And as you noted, the Right does do a better job of quieting its ‘idiotarians’. The only problem is, they essentially do it with the “bribes and promises” approach. Jerry Falwell, even when muzzled, knows that to some degree he and the people he represents will get a hearing from the White House and congress, the American seats of power.

On the left, we are a minority in all branches of government. How can we cast off the extremists if we have nothing to offer to placate them, nothing to drive them away with? It makes it harder to easily dismiss them, and as we get drawn into a serious debate with them (which we’d handily win), the Republicans will simply say, “Look, the Democrats can’t even stop their circular firing squad, how can they run the country?” and we’ll lose more seats in Congress.

I’m with the College Dems at my school, and the reactionary extremism is so thick you could cut it with a knife. What’s the solution for people like me? What *can* we do? Casting out the extremists seems an awful lot like putting salt on a bird’s tail.

You’ve got a big pulpit. Help show us Dems how to make a party that’s sane, but doesn’t believe that America is a Christian nation or homosexuality is a sin or that all the poor are poor because they deserve it.

Well, I don’t believe any of those three things — I don’t even think this is a “pulpit!” — but I confess that I don’t know how to save the Dems. I think that the “silent majority” — those genuine moderate Democrats/Liberals that I keep hearing about, but don’t hear a lot from on the national stage — needs to realize the damage that the kooks do — as the Republicans figured out — and quit regarding extremism as evidence of “commitment” or “passion.” I tried to sketch something like that alternate approach here, but though it’s not hard to imagine, I think it would be hard for the Democrats to do.

I do think, though, that many people (me included) would cheer the Democrats for trying to make those changes, and while there might be a little bit of sniping from Republicans, that sniping would actually help the Democrats by calling attention to what was going on.

The alternative is for the Democratic party to get smaller as it gets angrier, and angrier as it gets smaller, until it just doesn’t matter anymore. At some point the Republican Party will then likely split into a social-conservative wing and a libertarian wing, and I can join the latter, I guess. I’m not ready to call the Democrats the new Whigs, but it’s not impossible for me to imagine.

The question is, will the Democrats be willing to do to Ted Kennedy, for his remarks on the war, what Republicans did to Trent Lott, for his remarks on Strom Thurmond and the 1948 election?

UPDATE: Reader Maria Gordon emails:

I read your posting from Joe McReynolds with a sinking heart. I voted for George W. because I felt he was the better candidate (not ideal, just better). Having said that, I would most willingly vote Democratic if they could field someone that would reflect those that are middle of the road. The Democrats continue to dish up candidates so left of center they fall off a cliff. (caveat, we just moved from SF (to Virginia) where the politics go beyond the pale; if you don’t agree with them you must be wealthy, wicked and evil. So much for healthy debate to challenge ones views; which by the way, we are not wealthy, both have MBA’s and have never considered ourselves non-charitable) The Democratic Party today reminds me of the Tories after John Major. Their biggest problem is the Tory Party. Today, the Democratic Party’s biggest problem is the Democrats themselves. Heaven help us if they can’t figure this out as I for one, do not wish to have a one party system. It makes me uncomfortable to have all three branches of government in one party’s hand but what can we do when not given a true choice?

I agree. Hugh Hewitt can have a slogan calling for the end of the Democrats’ power on his site if he wants, but I’d much prefer seeing a functioning two-party system. It does seem to me that Karl Rove wants to do to the Democrats what Tony Blair’s Labour has done to the Tories. And it also seems to me that the Democrats are helping Rove a lot, just as the Tories helped Blair. I don’t think it’s a good thing in either case, but what can I do besides point it out?

Read this, too. And here’s an older piece saying that the “Sandbox Left” is killing the Democrats.

Meanwhile, Jeff Jarvis asks: “are we on the left really reduced to the Mr. Blackwell party?”

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Eric Hall has a different British example in mind:

For the Dems to win, they need to muster the balls to split from the hard-left. This is both the means to the end, and the end itself.

A moderate centrist party that pulls in the majority of independents and also saps the harder edges of the spectrum simply would not be beat. What we need is a party that: avowedly embraces the many benefits of capitalism and industry while also protecting investors and labor; that understands how foreign policy depends on negotiating from a position of strength instead of a position of weakness; that personal libertarianism has to be balanced with the need for communities to be able to define their own laws and norms according to their social systems and beliefs, and most of all, that America is already a force for good in the world and not a font of evil.

That could be the Democrats, but for them to get there they have to become the centrist party. This means, primarily, that they need to encourage the establishment of a more powerful “true left” party (eg, the greens or the socialists), and force the hard-left elements into that party. They would also have to recruit centrist republicans and independents so that they could grow the center into an actual majority (or a sizable plurality anyway). Since this strategy necessarily dictates that the Democrats would become smaller before they became larger, it is not likely to happen on purpose, of course. However, since they are already on track to becoming smaller anyway, this may happen on its own, just as Blair rescued Labour after it had been destroyed by itself.

I hope that this happens. Single-party dominance doesn’t make for great government, at least from my perspective.

MIKE HENDRIX SUMS UP three and a half years of blogging in one post.

ED MORRISSEY WONDERS why Afghanistan fell off the media map, and offers some suggestions.

This sum-up piece from The Smithsonian is worth reading.

MONKEYS WILL PAY TO SEE MONKEY PORN: And they’re into “celebrity gossip,” too:

The rhesus macaque monkeys also splurged on photos of top-dog counterparts, the high-ranking primates. . . . The scientists actually had to pay these guys, in the form of extra juice, to get them to look at images of lower-ranking monkeys.

I guess that’s why Oliver and Max blog about InstaPundit so much more than the reverse . . . . (Via Slashdot).

THIS doesn’t sound like very sophisticated diplomacy.

UPDATE: Reader Billy Hollis sees beneath the surface:

Maybe it was just all a series of mistakes. Then again, the Iranians probably came away with the idea of “those crazy, blundering Americans – there’s no telling what they’ll do”. And that may be exactly what we want them to think.

Heh. I sure hope we’re that smart . . . .

IRAQI ELECTION COVERAGE ON C-SPAN TOMORROW will include a section with Spirit of America.

And here’s a huge roundup of Iraq election coverage, courtesy of Jeff Jarvis.

UPDATE: The Mudville Gazette has more, including these comments to Dan Rather:

Johnson says the Marine presence has changed life in Hasweh. His convoys are being attacked much less frequently. The market is busy. Schools, which were closed last year, are open now. And there is water and electricity most of the time.

But Johnson doesn’t think that story is getting out. Neither does Sgt. Lewis. “I am tired of hearing the crap,” says Lewis. “The whole, well, ‘We are barely hanging on, we’re losing, the insurgency is growing.’ All that. We are doing fine. It’s just a small, a small amount of people out there causing the problems. I mean, it is a small number, and we’re killing them.”

And from Dan Rather. As Greyhawk writes: “I admit to being surprised” at the tenor of Rather’s reporting. And check out his whole site.

AARON MCGRUDER moves into Ted Rall territory. (Via Roger Simon).

UPDATE: Heh. This parody is quite funny.

WELL SAID:

I’d like to ask a favor: Regardless of one’s political inclination, irrespective of your confidence in the electoral process employed, or the decision to invade and occupy Iraq, no matter what the outcome, let us all stand united in our admiration for those courageous Iraqi’s who will brave gunfire, RPGs, bombs, and reprisal, to determine their own fate? For they choose to do so in bold defiance of promised violence and certain intimidation.

Indeed.

DON’T MISS MORE IRAQ ELECTION COVERAGE from Friends of Democracy.