"He speaks English." That was a recent response from the White House press secretary when challenged on the qualifications of President Obama's campaign contributor and nominee for Ambassador to The Court of St. James's, that's the U.K.   

I picked-up this tongue-in-cheek exchange in a blog attack (Daily Beast: "Obama's Embassies for Sale") against President Obama by a former career diplomat for his being "just like his crony-appointing predecessors" when it comes to ambassadorships. In fact, the President may be worse. 

This former ambassador clearly loathes the long-standing "sordid practice" of giving ambassadorships to political donors, usually the plumb posts: London, Paris, Tokyo. It's corrupting, he says. The blogger's stereotype donor lacks foreign-policy credentials, so needlessly compromises our national security. 

I don't know Louis Susman, our new ambassador in London. I know I don't share his politics. But his biography doesn't scream out "novice." He has worked for two major banks, doing international work, after many years in law.  He has served on a public diplomacy commission, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and museum and hospital boards.  He's no John Adams, our first diplomat in London, but he brings some relevant experiences to the table, including ones a career foreign service officer just can't get.  And yes, he does speak English. 

I have met good and bad political ambassadors. One, the late Smith Hempstone, excelled in Kenya, pushing and pushing democracy. I have met outstanding career ambassadors, and unimpressive ones.  There's no magic formula. 

Frankly, too many career ambassadors suffer from clientitis. They develop in a system valuing diplomatic process to a fault, sacrificing boldness and originality. Some career ambassadors (and would-bes) chose not to make waves with the host government. I can only assume that's best for promotion. It doesn't serve U.S. interests, though. Career types get 70 percent of ambassadorships; they shouldn't be given a monopoly.          

I have posted about the wisdom (lack of) of appointing career diplomat Chris Hill as our ambassador in Iraq.  As the lead in nuclear negotiations, Hill relentlessly pursued a course of accommodation, letting North Korea take us to the cleaners. Does anyone see it differently?  Yet Hill was sent to Iraq to make very important decisions.  That's meritocracy?        

There are abuses with political appointments. Senate confirmation of ambassadors should be a higher hurdle.  Ideally, political support wouldn't get the White House's attention, but nor should it be a disqualification.  Keep up the scrutiny, but attacks on politicals, fair and not, shouldn't put career ambassadors on a pedestal.