It’s official: Democrats have won the Senate race in Alaska, increasing their Senate caucus count to 58 (including two independents). Democrat Mark Begich narrowly defeated Sen. Ted Stevens (in photo), who had been convicted of seven felonies for failing to report gifts. Two other Senate races are still undecided. Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., leads Al Franken by only 206 votes out of 2.9 million ballots cast, and Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., is facing a runoff race Dec. 2 against Jim Martin.
With the apparent selection of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to be Barack Obama’s secretary of health and human services, the Cabinet possibilities for Gov. Kathleen Sebelius are narrowing. Her background as Kansas insurance commissioner seemed to make Sebelius best suited for the HHS post. Other possible positions still unfilled are secretaries of environment and energy.
I think making Hillary Clinton secretary of state is an inspired idea. It really does take advantage of the Clinton name abroad; it could even put Bill Clinton to good use and keep him out of mischief; and Barack Obama has kept telling us that his Cabinet model is “Team of Rivals.” Unlike the vice presidency, a secretary of state has real constitutionally designated things to do. From Clinton’s point of view, it would be a natural position from which to run to succeed Obama in 2016. – Andrew Sullivan, andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com
Hillary Clinton has a pretty good life. She’s already just about the most powerful person in the Senate, and if she wants to formalize that status and become majority leader one of these years, she has an excellent chance. Who knows: She might even make it back to the White House. All of which raises a question: Why on earth would she want to be secretary of state? The job is an awful launching pad for the White House. It forces you to turn your energies away from domestic issues, which is what Americans usually vote on, and towards international questions that many find exotic and obscure. Besides, secretaries of state aren’t meant to be politically popular. – Peter Beinart, senior fellow, the Council on Foreign Relations
Lawmakers deciding whether to lend money to U.S. automakers should consider how well bailouts have and haven’t worked overseas. British Leyland, the maker of such brands as Land-Rover and Jaguar, received $16.5 billion in inflation-adjusted taxpayer dollars in the 1970s and 1980s but still went out of business. “I’m not telling the U.S. what to do, but the lessons of the British experience is don’t throw good money after bad,” one former British government official told the New York Times. On the other hand, Renault received a bailout from the French government in the 1980s and is now highly profitable.