Looks like the DNC job is almost in Dean’s grasp:

Dr. Dean’s dominance was secured after Martin Frost, a former representative from Texas, whom many Democrats viewed as the institutional counterpart to Dr. Dean, dropped out after failing – in what had become an increasingly long-shot effort – to win support from national labor unions. The A.F.L.-C.I.O. announced instead that it would remain neutral, freeing its affiliate members to do what they wanted, which proved in many cases to be boarding the Dean train. “It’s a fait accompli, it’s over: Dean’s going to be it,” said Gerald McEntee, head of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, who runs the umbrella political organization for all the unions in the A.F.L.-C.I.O. Democrats said Dr. Dean overcame the hurdles of his failed presidential candidacy by intensely courting Democratic leaders, assuring them that he was not the liberal and undisciplined caricature that many said they saw last year. He also freely made the kind of bread-and-butter promises that have always helped politicians win elections, promising to channel at least $11 million in national Democratic money to pay salaries at the state parties, Democratic officials said. And Dr. Dean promised that he would bring to the Democratic National Committee the base of young and enthusiastic voters and the generous Internet contributors who helped power his high-flying, if short, campaign for president…Dr. Dean has already shown that he may not be willing to be the traditional deferential party chairman, declaring, for example, that he would have opposed the nomination of Alberto R. Gonzales for attorney general and criticizing Senator Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader, for saying he would support Justice Antonin Scalia to be chief justice. The two Democratic leaders in Congress did not back Dr. Dean and encouraged one of his rivals, Tim Roemer, a former congressman from Indiana, and there were signs that they were not rushing to cede the stage to him. “I think that Governor Dean would take his lead from us,” said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader. And Mr. Reid said: “The Democratic chairman has a constituency of 447 people. Our constituency is much larger than that.”

…Mr. Frost was one of two Democrats to drop out from the race on Tuesday. David Leland, a former Ohio party chairman, who had drawn minimal support for his bid, also quit, and endorsed Dr. Dean. Mr. Frost did not make a public endorsement, though he left little doubt of how he saw the race settling. “The challenge ahead for Governor Dean will be to unite the party, rebuild the D.N.C. and win elections in every region of the country,” he said…Several Democrats said that only Mr. Fowler appeared to have any chance of raising an anti-Dean flag, and that his hopes for doing that were contingent on Mr. Roemer and Mr. Rosenberg stepping aside. Dr. Dean announced the support of 53 new committee members, bringing his total vote count to 103 public commitments, his campaign said. He won the formal endorsement of the Service Employees International Union, said Anna Burger, its secretary-treasurer. Among the committee members supporting him are Edward J. McElroy, the president of the American Federation of Teachers.

Democratic senators refuse Alberto Gonzales a rubber stamp:

“Judge Gonzales is the wrong man for this job,” Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, declared, using the title Mr. Gonzales acquired as a member of the Texas Supreme Court. Mr. Gonzales’ actions as White House counsel, Mr. Leahy continued, “have tarnished our country’s moral leadership in the world and put American soldiers and American citizens at greater risk.”…”Every Hispanic-American in the country is watching,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which voted, 10 to 8, along party lines last week to endorse Mr. Gonzales’s nomination. Mr. Gonzales’s rise from childhood poverty in Texas to Harvard Law School and the highest levels of government shows, Mr. Hatch said, that “in America there is no limit to how far they can go.” But Senator Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, argued that confirmation should be based on more than heritage or innate ability. “I dearly wish we could vote for his compelling personal story,” Mr. Leahy said, “not for the record before us.” Democrats said that as White House counsel, Mr. Gonzales had helped devise policies that narrowed the definition of “torture” and led to the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and at the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, tarnishing America’s image abroad and making the country less secure…

Opposition to Mr. Gonzales is so strong is some quarters that a handful of Democrats this afternoon even discussed trying to stall the nomination through a filibuster, a parliamentary move that would require 60 votes to overcome. The Republicans have 55 seats. But the Democratic leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, later said there would be no filibuster. Assuming that the nomination does come to a vote eventually, confirmation of Mr. Gonzales to succeed John Ashcroft at the Justice Department appears all but certain, given the Republicans’ majority in the Senate. No Republicans have indicated any wavering in their support. Nor, by midafternoon, after more than five hours of debate, had any Democrat spoken in favor of the nominee…All indications pointed to a vote on Mr. Gonzales that would be far closer than the 85-to-13 margin by which the Senate confirmed Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state last week.

People are watching, Latino and not, American and not, to see who will take a strong stance against state sponsored-torture.

Further demonstration of the competitive disadvantage at which Yale has put itself by refusing substantive financial aid reform:

The total number of applications to Yale College for the Class of 2009 slightly decreased this year by about 1.2 percent, Yale Dean of Admissions Richard Shaw said…While Yale experienced a decrease in applicants, Harvard University received a record number of applications, and Brown University also witnessed an increase. Other universities in the Ivy League have not yet released their admissions numbers. Yale College Dean Peter Salovey said the University’s admissions numbers do not represent a dramatic shift. “I would characterize [this year’s number] as statistically the same as last year’s,” Salovey said. “If we’re around what we were last year, then we’re very good, because last year was record-setting.”

…In a Harvard press release, Harvard Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid William Fitzsimmons attributed the increase in applications to recent changes in Harvard’s financial aid policy. “This unprecedented applicant pool is due in large measure to the new Harvard Financial Aid Initiative announced by President Lawrence H. Summers last February in his keynote address to the American Council on Education,” Fitzsimmons said in the press release. “The new program sends a strong message that Harvard is accessible to all students, regardless of family financial resources.” Although Yale’s number of applications declined, Shaw said he was pleased with this year’s amount, and that the decrease was too small to be relevant.

Donnie Fowler’s success in getting the support of a narrow plurality of the Executive Committee of the Association of State Democratic Chairs in his run for DNC Chair proved pyrhic today when the full membership took its own vote and Howard Dean beat Fowler 56 to 21, prompting the ASDC to endorse Dean and Wellington Webb to drop out and endorse Dean as well:

Webb, a former three-term Denver mayor, pulled out of contention immediately after an influential group of state Democratic Party chairpeople overwhelming supported Dean, a 2004 presidential candidate who promises to rally the “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.” Also today, Colorado Democratic Chairman Chris Gates backed Dean after stumping for Webb for more than a month. “Howard Dean has been a thoughtful advocate for progressive change, both as governor of Vermont and as a candidate for president. And I think he’ll make a great national party chair,” Gates said.

Michael Ross will not be executed tonight:

State officials today canceled plans to execute serial killer Michael Ross after new evidence emerged that Ross’ attorney said raises questions about his competency. “Based on advice from both the chief state’s attorney and the attorney general that a legal impediment does now exist prohibiting the administration of capital punishment in the case of Michael Ross, the Department of Correction has canceled tonight’s scheduled execution,” said Brian Garnett, spokesman for the department. Ross would have been the first person in 45 years to be executed in New England. The execution was first scheduled for Wednesday and was postponed three times as new court challenges emerged. It was set for 9 p.m. Monday before being canceled. Officials will now have to go back before a state judge and obtain a new death warrant.

Ross had said for months that he would forgo any appeals of his death sentence and hired attorney T.R. Paulding to expedite his execution. That changed on Monday when Paulding filed papers in U.S. District Court questioning Ross’ competency. It’s unknown when those issues will be resolved. “He took a U-turn,” Chief State’s Attorney Christopher Morano said Monday. “And that is why we are doing what we are doing today.” Paulding’s motion was filed after months in which Paulding had maintained that Ross is mentally competent to forgo his appeals. “On Friday, new information was revealed to me that made me question Mr. Ross’ competency,” Paulding said. “The last 48 hours have reinforced my belief that the execution of Michael Ross should be delayed to determine whether he is competent. New and significant evidence has come to light that I simply cannot ignore.”

Russ Feingold reintroduces his Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act:

Nine hundred and forty-four executions, and 117 exonerations in the modern death penalty era. That is an embarrassing statistic, one that should have us all questioning the use of capital punishment in this country. And we continue to learn about more cases in which our justice system has failed. Since I first introduced this bill in November of 1999, 36 death row inmates have been exonerated throughout the country, 12 since I introduced this bill in the last Congress in February 2003. Since I last introduced this bill, 115 people have been executed nationwide. How many innocents are among them? We may never know…As evidence of the flaws in our system mounts, it has created an awareness that has not escaped the attention of the American people. Layer after layer of confidence in the death penalty system has been gradually peeling away, and the voices of those questioning its fairness are growing louder and louder…That our modern society relies on killing as punishment is disturbing enough. Even more disturbing, however, is that our States’ and Federal Government’s use of the death penalty is often not consistent with principles of due process, fairness, and justice. These principles are the foundation of our criminal justice system.

Meanwhile, he makes no effort to stem speculation about his future ambitions:

U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., told the Tiger Bay Club of Volusia County on Friday that he’ll decide whether to run after “going around the country” working to return a Democrat to the White House…For now, Feingold said, he wants to be “part of the process” of identifying a candidate likely to succeed George W. Bush in 2008. That involves helping to create “national organizations of people to make that happen,” he said. A decision to run hinges on “whether I feel I’ll be the best candidate to win,” he said, adding, “I’m not going to even worry about that right now.”…Club member Al Smith, a local physician and registered Democrat, asked Feingold if “the party can stand another liberal from the Northeast (as a candidate) and still survive as a party?” Feingold replied that the country is looking for a candidate they can feel connected to, whether liberal or conservative.

Kos loses it:

Once upon a time, party officials feared NARAL, they feared the unions, they feared the Sierra Club, they feared trial lawyers, they feared NOW, they feared the NAACP, they feared Latino groups, and so on. For the first time, it looks like they’re starting to fear people, not special interest groups. We’re growing up as a party.

Wal-Mart is a special interest because it leverages a tremendous amount of money and power to serve narrow ends which benefit a tiny constituency of plutocrats and wreak havoc on the lives of most Americans.

Unions pool and leverage the power of their members and their willingness to engage in organizing and collective action to secure justice for themselves and for millions of working Americans. There is no comparison.

To say that bevy (however large) of bloggers (folks who are disproportionately whiter, richer, and maler than America, let alone the Democratic party) are real people in a way that organized workers, organized environmentalists, organized women, and organized people of color are none is outrageous.

A victory for the Fifth Amendment:

A U.S. judge dealt a setback to the Bush administration and ruled on Monday that the Guantanamo Bay terrorism suspects can challenge their confinement and the procedures in their military tribunal review process are unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green said the prisoners at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have constitutional protections under U.S. law. “The court concludes that the petitioners have stated valid claims under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and that the procedures implemented by the government to confirm that the petitioners are ‘enemy combatants’ subject to indefinite detention violate the petitioners’ rights to due process of law,” Green wrote. More than 540 suspects are being held at Guantanamo after being detained during the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and in other operations in the U.S. war on terrorism. They are al Qaeda suspects and accused Taliban fighters. The ruling pertained to only 50 detainees. Bush administration attorneys argued the prisoners have no constitutional rights and their lawsuits challenging the conditions of their confinement and seeking their release must be dismissed. The tribunals, formally called a military commission, at the base were authorized by President Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, hijacked airliner attacks on the United States, but have been criticized by human rights groups as unfair to defendants.

Over at The New Republic, Hillary Clinton is winning accolades from Michelle Cottle and Andrew Sullivan for her new rhetoric on abortion last week. Like Clinton herself, they’re each partially right.

Cottle takes on Jim Wallis of Sojourners and others for trying to win the “moral values” debate for Democrats by shifting it onto economic turf. She’s right to argue that responding to the heartfelt opposition of all too many working class Republicans to the Democrats’ stances on abortion and other so-called “social issues” with a sleight-of-hand is both insulting and ineffective. The Democrats do indeed need to win the values debate on the “social turf.” But, contra Cottle, a winning strategy for the Democrats will also depend on broadening the popular conception of moral politics to include the economic exploitation and persistent poverty of millions of Americans. Cottle should know better than to take on face value the idea that so-called “values voters” simply could care less about children without healthcare. She completely overlooks the extent to which, in the absence of a real discussion by Democrats of America’s savage inequalities. Republicans have been able to successfully repackage “social issues” as class grievances against liberal elites and activist judges. It’s not surprising that those who want Democrats to change the topic and trounce the GOP on economic moral issues and those who want them to change the message and trounce the GOP on social moral issues each see the other standing in the way of progress. But a winning strategy will have to do both.

Sullivan, like Cottle, writes with the stated intention of helping Democrats win on abortion. And parts of the approach for which he credits Clinton are indeed good moves. Certainly, Democratic politicians and activists should recognize the difficulty and sadness with which many women approach the choice to have an abortion (Sullivan, like most pundits, drastically exaggerates the extent to which this is not already the case). And absolutely, Democratic politicians and activists should frame access to all forms of contraception in all situations as “the surest way to prevent” abortions (nothing so new here either). As for demonstrating respect for one’s opponents, I don’t think many are arguing that the Democrats should demonstrate intentional disrespect for those who disagree on abortion.

But what those on both sides of this debate want, more than respect, is to win. And while Sullivan insists (in a strange turn of phrase) that “Democrats can still be and almost certainly should be for the right to legal abortion,” readers can be excused for coming away with a mixed message. Sullivan follows a long line of pundits and reporters in conflating changes in discourse on abortion with changes in policy. Seemingly intentional ambiguity radiates from Sullivan’s insistence that

One reason that John Kerry had such a hard time reaching people who have moral qualms about abortion was his record: an almost relentless defense of abortion rights – even for third trimester unborn children – with no emphasis on the moral costs to all of us of such a callous disregard of human dignity. You cannot have such a record and then hope to convince others that you care about the sanctity of life.

One could read such a graph to mean that Kerry could have won the abortion debate if only he were on record mourning the “moral costs.” But it’s not clear why one would. A more intuitive reading would be: To win over “pro-life” voters, Democrats should cast more “pro-life” votes. Otherwise, how are we to understand Sullivan’s criticism of Kerry for being “almost relentless” in supporting the right to choose. Sullivan isn’t so much offering ideas on how to win the debate over abortion as urging a partial surrender.

More specifically, Sullivan lauds Clinton’s support for abstinence-only education as good politics, despite the preponderance of evidence that diverting dollars from sex ed to abstinence ed will lead to more unprotected sex and therefore more abortions. And Sullivan urges Democrats to back candidates like Bob Casey in Democratic primaries specifically because they oppose the party’s position on abortion rights. He pushes this plan – that Democrats essentially should sell their position by working against candidates who support it – as a corrective to a mythical “fatwa” against such politicians in the Democratic party. Those who believe such a fatwa exists may still be under the mistaken impression that Casey’s father was denied the chance the speak at the convention nominating Bill Clinton because he opposed abortion and not because Casey had announced he would be voting against Bill Clinton. Either that, or they’re willing to suggest with a straight face, as Sullivan does, that for the GOP to have a pro-choice second-in-command at the RNC while the Democratic party has an anti-choice Senate Minority Leader demonstrates that “the Republicans are more obviously tolerant of dissent than Democrats.”

Finally, Sullivan wants Democrats to tone down the rhetoric about women’s rights and instead frame abortion as killing and abortion rights as a way to avert more gruesome killing. Instead of “reproductive rights,” Sullivan argues, Democrats should talk about a decision through which “one soul is destroyed and another wounded.” But while talking about abortion as a “sad, even tragic choice” for the mother may help make the case, arguing that it’s a tragedy for “unborn children” won’t. Either a woman is a constitutionally-protected person with a fetus inside of her, or a fetus is a constitutionally-protected person with a womb attached. If Democrats frame abortion as killing, as Sullivan does, they will only increase support for banning abortion (and for the dissolution of the Democratic party). This too, is not a new idea. Neither is it a good one.

Whether Michael Ross will be executed by the state tonight remains unclear:

Defense attorney T.R. Paulding said Sunday that he has no plans to stop representing serial killer Michael Ross, a decision that state officials said keeps Ross on track to be executed Monday night. Paulding abruptly halted Ross’ planned execution early Saturday, saying he had to consider whether he had a conflict of interest in the case. “I have no intention of leaving the case,” Paulding said in a brief interview Sunday with The Associated Press. If Paulding had dropped off the case, state officials have said it would have further delayed the execution. State officials said the execution, which would be the first in New England since 1960, was still scheduled for Monday at 9 p.m. “We’re sticking with that schedule,” Chief State’s Attorney Christopher Morano said. “We will be there prepared to carry out the court’s order on Monday.”

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said state lawyers have worked through the weekend preparing to contest last-minute appeals from outside groups. Such appeals, filed over Ross’ objection, have delayed the execution for almost a week. “Assuming he has made this decision and the last legal impediment has been removed, the criminal justice process should go forward on Monday evening,” Blumenthal said. Paulding, who was hired to help Ross end his appeals and accept the death penalty, asked that the execution be delayed Saturday morning after U.S. District Judge Robert Chatigny accused him of not adequately investigating claims that Ross was mentally incompetent to make the decision to die. Chatigny castigated Paulding for not investigating new evidence in the case. The evidence, including accounts from another inmate and a retired deputy warden, have indicated that deplorable conditions on death row may have influenced Ross’ decision.

Iraqi elections come to a close:

Preliminary estimates of a 72 percent turnout by a member of the Independent Electorial Commission, Adel Lami, were later revised at a news conference to “about 60 percent” by another commission official. The initial estimate excluded the mainly Sunni Muslim provinces of Anbar and Nineveh. Polling stations closed at 5 p.m. Iraqi time, or 9 a.m Eastern time. In Washington, Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice said the elections are “going better than expected.” She added in an interview on ABC TV’s “This Week” that “What we are seeing here is the voice of freedom.”

A sobering note came later in the day. A British C-130 Hercules military transport plane crashed near Balad, 35 miles northwest of Baghdad, , a Ministry of Defense spokesman in London said. The spokesman said the plane crashed at 5:25 p.m. Iraqi time. Balad is the site of the largest American airfield in Iraq and is the main military logistical center. Helicopters were hovering over the site of the crash as darkness fell, looking for survivors…The voting in Baghdad streets of Baghdad were closed to traffic, but full of children playing soccer, and men and women walking, some carrying babies. Everyone, it seemed, was going to vote. They dropped their ballots into boxes even as continuous mortar shells started exploding at about noon.

Human Rights Watch releases a report on the persistence of torture in Iraq:

The 94-page report, The New Iraq? Torture and Ill-treatment of Detainees in Iraqi Custody, documents how unlawful arrest, long-term incommunicado detention, torture and other ill-treatment of detainees (including children) by Iraqi authorities have become routine and commonplace. Human Rights Watch conducted interviews in Iraq with 90 detainees, 72 of whom alleged having been tortured or ill-treated, particularly under interrogation. While insurgent forces have committed numerous unlawful attacks against the Iraqi police, this does not justify the abuses committed by Iraqi authorities, Human Rights Watch said. “The people of Iraq were promised something better than this after the government of Saddam Hussein fell,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa Division. “The Iraqi Interim Government is not keeping its promises to honor and respect basic human rights. Sadly, the Iraqi people continue to suffer from a government that acts with impunity in its treatment of detainees.” Methods of torture cited by detainees include routine beatings to the body using cables, hosepipes and other implements. Detainees report kicking, slapping and punching; prolonged suspension from the wrists with the hands tied behind the back; electric shocks to sensitive parts of the body, including the earlobes and genitals; and being kept blindfolded and/or handcuffed continuously for several days. In several cases, the detainees suffered what may be permanent physical disability.