In The New York Times, Adam Nagourney coauthors what seems to be a winners-and-losers-of-the-9/11-hearings column and turns it into something different -- an article advancing the notion that just about everyone who criticized the Bush administration is auditioning for a job in the Kerry administration:

Mr. Ashcroft's challenge to [Jamie] Gorelick could prove a badge of honor for her should John Kerry win election, since she is on the list of people mentioned as a possible attorney general in a Kerry administration....

[Bob] Kerrey and [Richard] Ben-Veniste are also potential candidates for positions in a John Kerry admiration. And their prospects would presumably be helped if Mr. Kerry, should he win, attributes part of his victory to political damage done to Mr. Bush by those exchanges....

[Richard] Clarke should probably forget about any future employment in Washington as long as Republicans are in power....

I'm sorry -- do Nagourney and coauthor Eric Lichtblau really believe that Kerry could nominate someone connected with these hearings to a prominent position in his administration? Sure, maybe -- if pigs fly and the Democrats suddenly go from minority status in the Senate to a 67-33 majority in the next election.

In 2005, either the GOP will still control the Senate or the Democrats will have eked out a tiny majority (and that's a real long shot). That means any attempt to appoint Gorelick, Ben-Veniste, or Kerrey for anything would lead to a fight that would make the Lani Guinier episode look like a tea party.