From Friday’s Special Report.

On the importance of the Iraqi elections:

It is a remarkable event.
First of all, it will legitimize the local leaders, the ones who have been shut out, the ones in Anbar and the Sunnis and others, in a kind of a federalist way, the way that in America you have governors who have a legitimate claim on power. So you can have a dispersion of power all around the country.
Secondly, what you are getting is this amazing proliferation of parties and candidates. Unlike the earlier elections, in which it was a closed list, which means you could only support a party but not a candidate, this one is an open list system.
So you are going to get a lot of changes. You are going to get a lot of individuals. And you are not going to have what we had in the earlier elections, people voting according to sect and the advice of their religious leaders. There are a lot of secular parties here.
What you have is the growth of civil society. And what’s going to happen after this election, because of the vast number of parties, is going to be the bargaining among them, and you’re going to get all kinds of interesting coalitions.
It is the beginning of a civil society in Iraq and the strengthening of a democracy. And, in a way, it vindicates the surge and the entire idea of Iraq as capable of having a real democracy.

On the election of Michael Steele:

Good choice–politically smart, savvy, tough, as we saw in that little clip. If it hadn’t been for Katrina, I think he would be Senator from Maryland, but I think this was a good second choice. I think it was an excellent choice.