Obama does it again:  Jon Huntsman, perhaps the one guy who could have beaten him in 2012, has agreed to be the President’s nominee as U.S. Ambassador to China.  I presume that this will lead to a swift confirmation by the Senate, especially given growing concern over the absence of a senior U.S. presence in Beijing.

This is a smart move by Obama, and not merely because it helps clear the field in 2012.  Huntsman is a capable, smart, and effective politician who also happens to know a hell of a lot about Asia.  He comes from a family with a strong track record of success in the world of business.  He’s a moderate free-trader who understands China’s central role in the global economy.  And his prominence means that the Chinese are likely to regard Obama’s choice as a sign of respect.

It’s also a smart move for Huntsman.  The job will give him significant foreign policy chops ahead of a future run for the presidency.  It will keep him in the public eye (he was term limited as governor of Utah).  And it gives him the luxury of not running in 2012 (which is increasingly likely to be a battle to see who can stake out the most extreme positions on social policy and the most inflammatory rhetoric on Obama).  Huntsman is now in a position to offer a new vision for his party in 2016 (assuming that the party finally reverses its current drift toward troglodytism).

If that ends up being the scenario, it wouldn’t be the first time that a U.S. Ambassador to China later became President — George H.W. Bush was Ambassador in 1974-75 under President Ford.  In fact, more U.S. Ambassadors to China have become President over the past 150 years than have U.S. Secretaries of State.  Granted, the numbers are, respectively, 1 and 0, but it is an interesting (but probably irrelevant) fact.

One other observation:  some otherwise smart and seasoned politial observers have started using terms like the “Obama juggernaut” to imply or outright suggest that Obama, barring major political misfortune or personal scandal, may be unbeatable in 2012.  Although such an analysis is plausible, it’s also incredibly premature.  Back in 1991, many analysts — and several potential Democratic contenders — concluded that George H.W. Bush was unbeatable, given his 93 percent approval rating.  And we all know how that turned out.

Image via Wikipedia

Related posts

• Thought of the Day: Priorities
• Systems Theory and U.S. Foreign Policy: Obama’s Trip to Europe
• Reality Bites: The New Realism of U.S. Foreign Policy
• Ping Pong is to U.S.-China Relations as. . .
• Obama, Tibet, and “Inconsistency” in U.S. Foreign Policy