Maybe I'm overly cynical, but I thought this had been standard operating procedure for a century or more.

Its not unheard of, but its not less stupid destructive for being 'common'.

It's not new, but it's still not right. The best thing that could happen would be for receiving countries to start checking credentials, and to very publicly deny entry to ambassadors who are unqualified.

Minimal qualifications should include speaking the native language competently. That requirement alone would cut out 99% of the political cronies.

I'm with Rex, it's always been one of the plums to hand to your friends.

I thought this had been standard operating procedure for a century or more.

True. Such ambassadorships are to places like Tahiti, and Fiji. Not potential problem spots like Argentina, or Japan.

I mean, I'd love to be the ambassador to Turks and Caicos, or perhaps Aruba: most of the work revolves around hosting parties, and being nice to people. Not actual hard work of dealing with a potentially hostile host government, or just one that's simply pissed off at us, or one that is expecting our backing when a neighbor decides to annex some disputed territory.

That's were you need an actual diplomat.

It's true that ambassadorships have long been plums for cronies, but as has been pointed out, most such positions were sinecures; they involved little actual work. But now we're seeing cronies named to hot spots where real ambassadors are needed. Diplomacy is any nation's first line of defense, and the worse the diplomatic corps is, the more likely war becomes. (Of course, there are times when war is inevitable, but not always.)

I have no feel for whether Obama has been any worse about this than the previous four or five Presidents. Nominating Hillary Clinton as the SecState didn't help any; she might have been the worst one since Cyrus Vance.

As others have said here; yes, this is "standard operating procedures" but not for such critical spots. And most certainly not to the same degree that Obama has done.

And, most certainly, this cronyism is VERY insulting to local countries. Smaller countries have just sort of accepted it because, well, let's face it, they have no power or influence in the world and consider themselves just lucky to be left alone by the bigger guys. That, of course, doesn't make it right - it just sort of explains the why it happens.

I would argue that we should ALWAYS try to get the best into every spot. But, who ever listens to me, duh.

Amy, I'm not sure if it is because folks are too busy watching the Kardashians or are folks too busy just trying to keep the head above water in this Obamanation to notice or complain.

Many of the people I know (hardly a scientific survey sampling of US citizens) are just so sick of all the Obama crap and know that nothing is being done that they are just "waiting" until 2016. One friend, who runs his own business, told me that he has his business "on hold," that is not new hires, no new business until after 2016 because he doesn't know what else to expect until then.

On the other hand, you have a point; there is a clip on YouTube of MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell interrupting a congresswoman's interview about NSA's spying to bring "breaking news" of Justin Bieber's arrest. It makes you want to weep for our country.

Not new, true. Remember the IRA and probably anti-Judaism Joe Kennedy as Ambassador to the UK? And for centuries relatives of rulers got such positions, as did powerful citizens such as Caesar and Ptolemy in re Egypt.

Not optimal, no. But if the alternative were to draw only from career "diplomats" at the State Department, I do not feel that would be better.

The problem isn't the crony issue... it always has been.

The problem is a president that puts WORTHLESS people there.

seems like a recurring theme. sucks at home, and even more worthless abroad.

SwissArmyD; yes, it is true that Obama surrounds himself with worthless people. I suspect that is for two reasons:

1. Obama will not allow anyone smarter than himself to be around him, give him advice, etc. This eliminates a huge amount of talented folks.

2. Also, really talented people are too smart to play with Obama and are waiting until there is a better CEO running the White House. They are smart enough to know what a disaster Obama is and don't want to be a part of it. This also eliminates another huge amount of folks.

So, what we are left with is those who cannot stand on their own merits, those who wouldn't be hired in the White House under any other President. Those who ran for President and lost and saw this talent vacuum as one way to get into the White House (Why yes, I am referring to Hillary and Kerry).

So now the problem is -

How to blame this on George W. Bush?

I see that offered constantly by people who defend the current President, claiming he is powerless to right the vast wrongs he inhereited somehow.

If he is aware of them.

Back in college, over a decade ago, I was taught by a former ambassador who said that it was more often common that an ambassador knew the President or it was some sort of quid pro quo. I'm not sure there are any real standards since they are mainly a figurehead.