Posted by Change, What Change, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on Nov 10, 2009 at 1:57 pm

Price of Ambassadorship = $453,000.

Business as usual in Washington.

Posted by Bottomline, a resident of another community, on Nov 10, 2009 at 1:57 pm

Bottomline--she chaired the National Women for Obama committee and hosted a fundraiser that pulled in $453K for Obama--She and her husband likely matched that or better as well. That's the price tag for a sweet gig in Switzerland, regardless of your party affiliation - Change? Yea, right!

Posted by Positive change, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Nov 10, 2009 at 2:23 pm

Have either one of you posters taken a look at the woman's credentials? Her background, education, and work on human rights issues? What simplistic nonsense you posit.

Posted by Lynn, a resident of the Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle neighborhood, on Nov 10, 2009 at 7:09 pm

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Big money, buys power and position.

Posted by hmmm, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Nov 10, 2009 at 10:39 pm

Donahoe's qualifications are a heck of lot better than those of local resident and former ambassador to Ghana and Czechoslovakia, Shirley Temple Black.

Of course Donahoe doesn't have the qualification of a drink named after her.

A plus - for all the good the UN Human Wrongs Council does, Donahoe has an in to have it auctioned off on eBay. As if any respectable person would want to bid for it.

Posted by not impressed, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on Nov 11, 2009 at 8:38 am

"Credentials" -- she has a boatload of grad degrees which required her to spend at least 12 years in various universities after college, plus that year of studying Mandarin in China. That doesn't show someone is qualified for anything, just rich.

Posted by Change, What Change, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on Nov 11, 2009 at 8:48 am

Positive Change, would you be so quick to defend this appointment if it had been made by Bush?

Posted by Positive change, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Nov 11, 2009 at 10:59 am

"Change, What Change," It's interesting that you interpret my post as a defense of this appointment. Let me clarify: My post was calling you and the other poster to task for your snarling judgments that completely ignore any real qualifications this woman might have to make her a legitimate nominee. That's not a defense of the appointment. It's a criticism of your cynicism and knee-jerk impulse to attack and destroy.

And "not impressed," no credentials? Did you read the article? Let me help. The article states:

"Her career includes research on the nexus of U.S. foreign policy and human rights for The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, and strategies on the human rights of women and children for Amnesty International's Ginetta Sagan Fund."

And notice, please, that it says her career "includes...". Maybe she's done even more in the field of human rights. I don't know. But unless I did know more about her, I certainly wouldn't make grandiose proclamations about her nomination, and I don't understand the impulse to attack another person without having a clue as to what the person is all about.

Posted by Watching, a resident of the Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park neighborhood, on Nov 13, 2009 at 8:36 am

She certainly has an impressive resume. Let's hope she can be as effective in action as she is on paper, and can help right the ship. She and others involved in human rights issues in the Obama administration have got a huge task ahead of them.

Posted by Scholar, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Nov 13, 2009 at 12:58 pm

Looook... maybe she will be a great spy for the CIA. There's lots of terrorists running around Geneva. Maybe Bin Laden lives there in a cave under an expensive restaurant. Give her a magnifying class and a secret code name and let her have a go of it.

Posted by another perspective, a resident of the Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley neighborhood, on Nov 13, 2009 at 2:02 pm

Why wouldn't a politician want to utilize the talents of someone who has shown that they support the candidate's ideals and that they are effective at making things happen?

I don't understand why raising funds for something you believe in should rule one out for further service. I would want to seek out individuals who support my beliefs, who I have some first hand knowledge of, and who seem to want to serve.

Posted by Joe, a resident of the Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park neighborhood, on Nov 13, 2009 at 2:34 pm

Under George W. Bush, we learned the consequences of appointing people to positions for which they were not qualified. ("Heckuva job, Brownie," John Bolton, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, ...) Republicans (and their Libertarian cousins) have a hard time making the case that they are fit to govern, which is probably why they like to talk about dismantling government.

But, in the Bush administration at least, when they got into office, rather than dismantling government, they took to feathering their nests and those of their partners in ... is hypocrisy too strong a word? I'll float it out there and see if anyone objects.

Republicans can't govern. That's what is disorienting to some on this thread. Obama is hiring people qualified for the job of governing.

Posted by WhoRUpeople, a resident of another community, on Nov 13, 2009 at 2:40 pm

To Not Impressed-well said.

To Another perspective-also, well said-and to my previous point, nothing new here, no change, just politics as usual.