You missed the point on the Kennedy appointment of Lodge...in fact it was much more stark than any Obama appointment of Palin could be, because Kennedy not only indirectly defeated Lodge in 1960, but directly upset his Senate re-election in 1952 and thereby got his start at the Presidency. Lodge was Ike's campaign manager and spent more time helping Ike than mending his Mass. fences. Kennedy took advantage of local Republican animosity toward Ike amongst pro-Taft elites in Southeastern Mass. and managed an upset win. But Lodge did the right thing when asked, as has the Governor of Utah. They both deserve credit for serving their nation above personal political gain.

You really think the decision to accept is based on patriotic self-sacrifice?

In the case of both Lodge and Huntsman, it is very difficult to discern any political gain for the admbassador in question, and very easy to see the downside. So what do you think?

I dunno. I get the impression that US ambassadors are usually treated with royal deference and honor in other nations. A lot more than they'd get in their home state, anyway.

I think the point is that, politically speaking, the Ambassadorships to both the former Republic of Vietnam and the People's Republic of China are not likely to have a lot of upside. Whatever the calculations involved on the part of the appointees, the appointments in both cases were attempts to get bipartisanship support for whatever policy the government was trying to pursue. Whether the policy was or is right or wrong is not really the issue, but when a political leader of the opposition joins the sitting President in endorsing government policy, they are clearly making it difficult to later run against that President or that policy. So, I think some credit should be given to those who will cross political lines to help further what is perceived as being in the entire country's interest.