I think Joe Nocera has a fascinating idea of suggesting none-other than Bill Clinton to take over if Hillary has had enough. good column by-the-bye: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/27/opinio…

If anything, Huntsman should replace Rice as UN Ambassador.

@2 I like your idea better.

The guy deserves something for being a reasonable Republican. At the very least, scientists should capture and study him. We may never see a specimen like this in the wild again.

I'm for Huntsman as Secretary of State. At least it will keep John Kerry in the Senate and keep the GOP from trying to put Scott Brown back in

No. For the reasons @6 said.

Republicans play their games, acting as the polar opposite to everything the democrats do or say. EVEN if it was originally a republican idea. EVEN if it goes against their own interests. They are being immature sore losers and have been for the last 4 years.

The democrats should absolutely and completely shun all republicans, moderate or extreme, until they grow up (if they ever do).

No quarter. The republicans started this fight, they need to end it. Until they do, the democrats should ignore them 100%.

Huntsman has dissed Obama by quitting his job as Ambassador to China to run for President. He had his chance to be bipartisan and look what he did. So I say no to Huntsman.

I'm with nominating Huntsman for UN Ambassador. It's a job he'd like and be good at, and would absolutely prevent him from ever winning the GOP nomination. Maybe it would neutralize Republican hostility to the UN, though given that having a pro-transit Republican in the Labor Department did nothing to change Republican attitudes about transit, that's probably hoping too much.

Put Rice in. If they try to put a hold on her nomination, defer it until after the new Senate gets rid of the whole ability to put a hold on someone when it revises its rules about the filibuster in general. And then nominate her. Backing down gives credibility to a Republican conspiracy theory that has no credibility otherwise.

No, simply for the political talking point that this would give the Republicans in 2014 and 2016 - "See, we told you Democrats are no good in foreign policy - after they screwed the pooch in Bengazi, Obama had to get a Republican to do the job!"

@6 and 7, I'm with youse.

P.S. Huntman's dad put his ski lodge on the market earlier this year. For $50 million.
http://www.zillow.com/blog/2012-02-10/ho…

You're in rare form today, Mudede. I couldn't even make it all the way through the second line of this post. Congratulations.

Jon Huntsman seems sane when he's in a room full of other Republicans, but he's still a far right-winger. He's anti-women's rights and actually supports an anti-abortion constitutional amendment, he's anti-gay marriage, he's against any gun control, he's against Obamacare and universal healthcare, he's pro-drug war, and he's for a regressive flat tax.

The only reason he sounds sane is he doesn't think climate change is a myth, he doesn't want to deport all immigrants, and he was OK with ending the Iraq war. That qualifies him to fail the sociopath test, but not to actually have any influence.

Huntsman does not speak Chinese.

He can kinda-sorta get around enough to get on a bus or order in a restaurant, maybe, but his Chinese-talking performances on TV are bullshit. He is not fluent. When he speaks to Chinese, he speaks in English, because he knows he cannot express himself in Chinese.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p…

UN ambassador. Absolutely.

No way for Sec. of State.

There is no real definition of "fluency," so it's hard to really take assessments of Huntsman's Chinese very seriously. He's not a native speaker of Chinese, so no Chinese person will perceive his Chinese as native-equivalent, obviously. Yet, he can understand questions asked to him in Chinese, which speaks to strong passive comprehension skills (his comprehension of written Chinese may also be strong). As anyone who has studied a world language knows, developing oral proficiency in another languages takes longer and is much harder than developing listening and reading skills.

I suspect that he has a high level of proficiency ("fluency") for everyday interactions: speaking generally about himself and others, conducting transactions, etc. But without a university education in Chinese, he likely doesn't have the technical vocabulary or stylistic nuance he would need to deal with the arcane topics of international diplomacy or international relations--so, as a diplomat, he wisely resorts to English when it's important that he expresses himself accurately and clearly. The importance of avoiding cultural gaffes that could harm Sino-American relations cannot be understated.

His ability to connect with everyday Chinese people on everyday topics in Chinese is unassailable based on all video evidence; in private, he likely can also deal with more technical topics readily if awkwardly but is unwilling to perform circus tricks in front of cameras or on stage.

The very fact that he can express himself at all in Chinese is huge; George Bush's ability to express himself (awkwardly) in Spanish went a long way for him, as well, but no one was really concerned that it came out as, generously, third-year high-school Spanish.