“The point here is not that any of these picks are unworthy individuals, but rather that the main criterion by which they seem to have been chosen is their fundraising savvy for Democratic causes. That creates the impression around the world that these posts are political trinkets, which seriously degrades the post and stands as a barrier to Obama’s efforts to reassert American leadership.”
“It’s clear that none of these nominees came out of the State Department…. In the area of diplomatic appointments, Obama has not delivered “change we can believe in.” If he’s offered change of any sort, it is still more decay in an area overdue for reform. It’s up to Congress to stop fundraising impulses from taking precedence over the nation’s foreign policy concerns.”
This actually really ticks me off in hindsight – which is why I’ve linked to another article on it…. I have little issue with 20-30% of these jobs going to political appointees, but 55%??? That’s an outrageous number. And especially the fact that these people are being appointed to some of our most important allies… they may not be especially difficult jobs, as compared to say, East Asia or the Middle East, but still, I would hope that someone appointed to represent our “special relationship” with Great Britain would have some modicum of diplomatic training. And as far as appointees to the Caribbean… simply nonsense – when development is such an important issue down there, our ambassadors are probably lounging on beaches eating bananas, as far as we know.