Drudge has posted the flashing siren. I don’t want her to be president or vice-president of the United States, but I hope she’s OK.
Update: Hillary’s OK. Stomach virus. Rush says she was probably dizzy from the 180 degree turn she made on abortion last week. 
More on her “faint scare.”
Personally, I think the Democratic National Committee should select the best-qualified candidate. I bring up the color and sex issue only to mock Democrats’ obsession with votes while they care nothing about putting “people of color” in leadership positions. Read this sarcastic post.
From the Los Angeles Times:
The seven candidates seeking the job — a group headlined by former presidential contender Howard Dean — has spent the last several weeks trooping to regional Democratic forums around the country, holding fundraisers to build campaign treasuries that exceed $200,000, juggling demands from influential interest groups and deluging the 447 voting DNC members with calls pursuing their vote…Former Ohio Democratic Chairman David Leland and former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb, the only African American in the contest, have drawn limited support.
While Bush is appointing black women and Hispanics to high-profile positions, let the white boys at the DNC fight among themselves. Who cares? Howard Dean, Michael Moore: What difference does it make?
Unrelated link: Check out last night’s blogger symposium with myself, Hugh Hewitt, John Hawkins and Karol Sheinin.
Update: Looks like screaming Dean is a shoe-in. We shall overcome some other day…
Left-wing commentators, in Britain as in much of Europe, have focused disproportionately on the difficulties that any state must undergo during a transition process. To many of them, every terrorist bomb, every murdered election official, every sign of heightened military alertness — even the loss of a British aircraft — makes a nonsense of Iraq’s democratic aspirations. (Source)
Substitute Britain and British with America and American, and the paragraph applies to leftists in the United States as well.
The Iraq election is now a part of history. Over 70 percent of the electorate turned out. In our lifetimes we’ve seen the fall of a brutal dictator under the watch of a vilified and hated American president. But even the New York Times (reg. req.) had to concede that election day in Iraq was a success:
Courageous Iraqis turned out to vote yesterday in numbers that may have exceeded even the most optimistic predictions. Participation varied by region, and the impressive national percentages should not obscure the fact that the country’s large Sunni Arab minority remained broadly disenfranchised – due to alienation or terror or both. But even in some predominantly Sunni areas, turnout was higher than expected. And in an impressive range of mainly Shiite and Kurdish cities, a long silenced majority of ordinary Iraqis defied threats of deadly mayhem to cast votes for a new, and hopefully democratic, political order….This page has not hesitated to criticize the Bush administration over its policies in Iraq, and we continue to have grave doubts about the overall direction of American strategy there. Yet today, along with other Americans, whether supporters or critics of the war, we rejoice in a heartening advance by the Iraqi people. For now at least, the multiple political failures that marked the run-up to the voting stand eclipsed by a remarkably successful election day.
Aside from this editorial, I won’t be linking to news stories. The biased headlines tell you all you need to know about MSM’s coverage of the elections. But if you must read the stories, do so with delight as jaded leftist journalists try to spin the overwhelmingly positive news coming out of Iraq into something negative. They’re so predictable, it’s boring.
Maggie Gallagher gave me permission to post this e-mail. She sent it in reference to this column in the Washington Post (reg. req.):
“Did you see Fred Hiatt’s column this morning? Maggie
Statement from Maggie Gallagher, January 29, 2005
Yesterday I sent a letter to the Washington Post, asking the paper retract the specific claim the Bush administration paid me ‘to help promote the president’s proposal.’ For, as I wrote, ‘whether Howard Kurtz and the Washington Post acknowledge it or not, it is this specific charge and not the question of disclosure that is feeding the media coverage.’
This morning, the editorial leadership of the Washington Post has done an honorable thing by retracting this charge: ‘[Gallagher] was not paid to covertly espouse administration views in her columns.’
I hope that other media outlets that, relying on the reputation of the Washington Post, repeated that false charge as fact will show the same integrity and issue their own retractions or corrections. I specifically ask the New York Times to retract the charges made in its January 27 editorial ‘The Best Coverage Money Can Buy.’”
