Er, is Anna Wintour looking for an ambassadorship in a second Obama term?
posted at 4:01 pm on June 11, 2012 by Erika Johnsen
And here I was thinking that that whole weird “don’t be late” thing was just about Obama’s wealthy, glamorous buddies getting him reelected! How could I have been so naive? From NY Mag:
An article in Saturday’s Guardian mused that Anna Wintour might be rewarded with a political appointment in return for all the money she’sraising for Obama’s reelection campaign. Namely, that she’d be named the U.S. ambassador in England, a post that’s expected to open up later this year.
At first blush, the possibility of Wintour leaving Vogue for a jaunt back to her native London seems absurd, but the Guardian makes a good case for it. The post in question is traditionally reserved for deep-pocketed “friends” of the president, as it’s a cushy job that doesn’t require much heavy lifting when it comes to diplomacy. Recent history supports this: The position is currently occupied by 74-year-old Louis Susman, a retired vice-president of Citigroup, whose fund-raising abilities during Obama’s 2008 campaign earned him the nickname “the vacuum cleaner.” During the Bush administration, the spot was held by wealthy supporters William Farish and Robert Tuttle.
Here’s an interesting sidenote, whatever it may mean: In March of 2011, Vogue ran a glowing profile of Syrian first lady Asma Assad, helping out with the Syrian government’s public-relations push to make Assad and his wife seem chic and glamorous. They’ve since removed the profile from their website, but in an NYT piece about that whole affair today, Anna Wintour issued a statement finally coming out strongly against the Syrian regime.
In a phone interview, Ms. Buck said that shortly after the profile was published, she began “steadily speaking out against the Assad regime,” including in an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN and elsewhere. In April, on National Public Radio, Ms. Buck said she regretted the headline that Vogue put on the article. But she said Mrs. Assad was “extremely thin and very well-dressed, and therefore qualified to be in Vogue.”
This spring, the magazine removed the article from its Web site. On Sunday, Anna Wintour, the editor of Vogue, issued a statement about the article saying, in part: “Like many at that time, we were hopeful that the Assad regime would be open to a more progressive society. Subsequent to our interview, as the terrible events of the past year and a half unfolded in Syria, it became clear that its priorities and values were completely at odds with those of Vogue. The escalating atrocities in Syria are unconscionable and we deplore the actions of the Assad regime in the strongest possible terms.”
Trying to demostrate a little diplomatic acumen, perhaps? It looks like the ambassadorship-bid is just an unsubstantiated rumor right now, although Anna Wintour is supposedly well aware of the rumors and declining to quell them. Apparently, however, this kind of thing happens with ambassadorships all the damn time in the ranks of the most transparent administration, evah:
The current U.S. ambassador to England, Louis Susman, was a fundraising machine for Obama’s 2008 run. In April, Obama nominated Timothy Broas, who also raised more than a half-mil for Obama, to be the next ambassador to the Netherlands. Last year, iWatch News reported that many of the so-called bundlers who funneled millions of dollars to Obama in 2008 have been rewarded with nice jobs and access, like the telecommunications executive Donald Gips who became the ambassador to South Africa.
Before his 2008 election, Obama spoke out against the practice of wealthy donors being rewarded with prestigious ambassadorships. In early 2007, the candidate derided special interests who he said “turned our government into a game only they can afford to play.”
Huh. More examples of hypocrisy and broken promises from the Obama administration. The mind reels.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air


Bobby Jindal: Paternalistic, big-government liberalism is the biggest loser here

Super Nannies: EU bans olive oils, Germany ponders Autobahn speed limit






Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
As I just posted HotairLib has their whole head up their six o clock.
hamradio on May 24, 2013 at 2:43 PM
Who wrote the speech? Or are you just praising the messenger?
mixplix on May 24, 2013 at 2:57 PM
Connect the dots: journolist meeting by invitation only at the White House on, what Tuesday?, “big”speech by Obama on Thursday, lame stream media fawning over speech on Friday. Who would have seen that coming, huh?
parke on May 24, 2013 at 2:58 PM
They need the “war on terror” in order to further erode our Constitutional freedoms and to deflect criticism from the administration’s and Federal government’s ongoing corruption.
They are just trying to massage it so that they don’t offend the Muslims, international Libtards and their own sensibilities anymore than necessary.
A few Muslim terrorists here and there are quite expendable to this Administration despite their sympathies for them. These drone attacks also do much deflect any potential criticism that the Administration is weak in dealing with such matters.
Dr. ZhivBlago on May 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM
MSNBC is nothing but a left wing propaganda machine serving their master, Obama.
rplat on May 24, 2013 at 3:07 PM
I believe that he was officially nominated 10 days after he was sworn in. Wow! The WON really worked long hours that week and a half to earn that POS medal. During those ten days he ordered NO DRONE STRIKES to keep his peaceful record clean.
fred5678 on May 24, 2013 at 3:22 PM
Obama: Don’t worry about that Ben Ghazi guy. I killed Bin Laden, and Bush didn’t!
And Obummer still wants to close Gitmo? Good luck with that–not even Upchuck Schumer was willing to hold trials in New York!
Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM
They just changed the definition of terrorist. They used to be jihadis from the Middle East–now they’re Minutemen in Arizona and Tea Partiers in Ohio.
Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:29 PM
Erika, sometimes your writing shows signs of rivaling even the Master of Snark himself, Allahpundit. Good work!
KS Rex on May 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM
I love how crazy Al invoked the Nobel Peace Prize in praise of a speech that spoke about dropping bombs on people’s head. Maybe it was the “fewer” bombs than before that raised this to historic levels.
Do they even know or care that they are morons.
marnes on May 24, 2013 at 3:46 PM
His speech made less sense than Bluto’s Animal House Speech and was far less entertaining. Nothing less than base rallying time. Never thought I would say this, but Code Pink was the best part.
DDay on May 24, 2013 at 4:01 PM
Sperling posted this at the Examiner on May 23 about this “historic speech of Obysmal’s:
You see, we are just not working hard enough to “work with the Muslim American community” who are a “fundamental part of the American family.” Watch out, too, because Obysmal is again trying to limit the impact of the Internet.
onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:22 PM
That Chris Hayes is a bit of a twink, isn’t he?
onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM
Obama apparently gave two speeches yesterday and I watched the other one.
myiq2xu on May 24, 2013 at 5:03 PM
Nah. I’d detest the little pissant s.o.b. if he was white…or Asian…or any one of the myriad of made-up racial divisions.
Solaratov on May 24, 2013 at 11:00 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2