GM execs--those still with a job--were probably not happy when they saw the front-page of The New York Times on Thursday morning. The lead story: China wants to be the top dog in manufacturing electric cars:

TIANJIN, China -- Chinese leaders have adopted a plan aimed at turning the country into one of the leading producers of hybrid and all-electric vehicles within three years, and making it the world leader in electric cars and buses after that.

The goal, which radiates from the very top of the Chinese government, suggests that Detroit's Big Three, already struggling to stay alive, will face even stiffer foreign competition on the next field of automotive technology than they do today.

"China is well positioned to lead in this," said David Tulauskas, director of China government policy at General Motors.

There are advantages in running a command economy. Chinese leaders can snap their fingers and force the production of such cars, the purchases of such cars, and the installation of electric power-up stations throughout the nation. Sure, designing and building good products is always a challenge. But the Chinese government is in a better position to compel change than the US Energy Department, which has its own $25 billion program to develop electric-power cars.

China's move might also be a threat to Japan, where automakers have pushed ahead with electric cars and hybrids. But imagine this: what if China and Japan were to hook up? If the design and marketing experts of Honda or Toyota made common cause with Chinese carmakers, that would be one helluva challenge to whatever remains of Detroit. It may well be that in the 21st Century the motto of many nations will be, if you can't beat the Chinese, join 'em.

Detroit better wake up and hear the hum. And so should President Barack Obama. In addition to all his heavy burdens, he practically runs GM now. He has backed its and Chrysler's warrantees. And presumably there will soon be a deal that will lead to more federal billions for General Motors--and more direct federal oversight of the manufacturer's decisions and actions. If all that does happen, what will be bad for GM, will certainly be bad for Obama.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.

Bloomberg has one of my favorite perennial Washington pay-to-play stories:

Goldman Sachs Group Inc.'s political action committee contributed the maximum $10,000 to Connecticut Republican Christopher Shays's effort this year to keep his House seat.

Shays lost. Two weeks later, the PAC gave $5,000 to the winner, Democrat Jim Himes, whom it had shunned during the campaign.

New York-based Goldman Sachs, which declined comment, isn't alone. Other company PACs, including AT&T Inc. and Bank of America Corp., also began filling the campaign coffers of the freshmen who ousted their preferred candidates, federal records show.

"When an incumbent loses, donors naturally turn their attention to the new officeholder," said Rogan Kersh, associate dean of New York University's Wagner School of Public Service. "It's the American version of, 'The King is dead. Long live the King!'"

This happens after every election. Corporations that picked the losing candidate quickly turn around and dole out campaign cash to the victors. Why would they do this? Duh--to get access to these legislators so they can try to influence their votes on key matters. There's been plenty of chest-thumping in recent days about Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and the corrupt pay-to-play system in Illinois. Yet a well-established version of pay-to-play exists in the nation's capital. It may be that Senate seats are not bought and sold in Washington; they're just rented. Which brings me to.....