The title of a recently released Yahoo! article is "Obama taps potential rival for China envoy". Again, the key words here are "potential rival". This is the second time President Obama has tried to nominate someone from across the aisle for a key cabinet post. The last time the president tried to do this was when he nominated New Hampshire Republican Sen. Judd Gregg to be Commerce Secretary and Gregg withdrew because of clear idological differences (Mr. Obama should have known better because even he said that "Now Judd and I may not agree on every issue, MOST NOTABLY WHO SHOULD HAVE WON THE ELECTION'; that's a pretty substantial difference, Mr. President).  The big question, again is: will it work?

The first sentence of this article is "WITH A REACH ACROSS THE POLITICAL DIVIDE for Utah Gov Jon Huntsman as ambassador to China, President Barack Obama MAY HAVE SIDELINED FOR NOW A POTENTIALLY FORMIDABLE REPUBLICAN MODERATE and possible White House challenger in 2012". The key words in this statement are "for now" and "a potentially formidable Republican moderate" (a group whose support Obama has coveted, but so far, this has been a very tough sell). How strange is it that not only is this an opponent from the other side of the aisle, but here's a man who could be challenging the incumbent president for the presidency in 2012.

The third sentence is also significant: "Yet Huntsman, WHO HAS UPSET THE GOP'S CONSERVATIVE BASE, may gain too". OK, so it turns out that Obama and Huntsman are very similar, because both have had disagreements with the extreme elements/factions within their own parties.

The next step is to figure out what political experts about this new partnership. According to John Weaver, an adviser to Huntsman and a former senior strategist to Sen. McCain during his failed White House bid last November, "It's no more complicated than that, THOUGH IT IS SO UNUSUAL IN WASHINGTON EVERYONE HAS TO TAKE A MAGNIFYING GLASS TO IT". What's so "unusual" about this pick? The last time Obama nominated a Republican for a key cabinet post, New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg withdrew because of AN IMPENDING CONFLICT OF INTEREST so we have to wonder if, ASSUMING THAT HUNTSMAN IS CONFIRMED, whether this will happen again.

However, the second part of Weaver's statement seems to contradict the first: "He was asked by the president to serve in a major diplomatic post, in a mission with a country (which is) most important to our economy (and) in dealing with (longtime foes such as) Iran, Pakistan and North Korea. JON IS UNIQUELY QUALIFIED and thus, you don't turn your country down". "Jon is uniquely qualified". Hm. This is a sharp 180 of the first of Weaver's statement, which sounded rather like a protest.

"Obama said he knew (that) Huntsman's nomination "wouldn't be the easiest decision to explain to his PARTY". But Obama said Huntsman was "the kind of leader who always puts COUNTRY ahead of PARTY and IS ALWAYS WILLING TO SACRIFICE ON BEHALF OF OUR NATION". This takes us back to the president's campaign days when he was an Illinois senator and from the outset of his campaign, Obama emphasized that we must put our party ahead of ourselves and our country ahead of our party.

According to Huntsman himself, "But I grew up understanding that THE MOST BASIC RESPONSIBILITY ONE HAS IS SERVICE TO COUNTRY. When the president of the United States asks you to step up and serve in a capacity like this THAT TO ME IS THE END OF THE CONVERSATION AND THE BEGINNING OF THE OBLIGATION TO RISE TO THE CHALLENGE". Huntsman added that "he didn't expect to be "called into action" by McCain's winning rival". OK, Huntsman seems to be sincere, but we have to remember/keep in mind that Gregg also appeared to be sincere before walking out on the president before he was confirmed. Also, the last statement makes him even more similar to Gregg (key words: "called into action BY MCCAIN'S WINNING RIVAL"), he is just masking his emotions better AT THIS STAGE/POINT.

According to LaVarr Webb, a Republican strategist in Utah, "Clearly Gov. Huntsman DOES HAVE MAJOR POLITICAL AMBITIONS AND SERVING AS AMBASSADOR TO CHINA CERTAINLY GIVES HIM FOREIGN POLICY CREDENTIALS". The key words in Webb's statement are undounbtedly "major political ambitions" and "foreign policy credentials" (if Webb is correct, then Huntsman would be like Sarah Palin, which is not a good indicator; actually, it's embarrassing).

Finally, according to Eric Hyer, a political scientist and China expert at Brigham Young University, "So he might SERVE FOR FOUR YEARS (i.e. under Obama) and then COME BACK AND RUN FOR PRESIDENT (in 2012). BUT CAN YOU RUN AGAINST THE GUY WHO HIRED YOU?" This is certainly food for thought for political junkies/enthusiasts/freaks. IF HUNTSMAN REALLY DOES DO WHAT HYER IS SUGGESTING IT WOULD BE THE FIRST CASE OF POLITICAL BACKSTABBING THAT WE HAVE EVER SEEN. This will be certainly be a good topic for political pundits and enthusiasts to talk about over the next several weeks, but again, the critical questions are undoubtedly: will Huntsman be confirmed (as we have seen with Tom Daschle and Nancy Killifer, this is no guarantee, even though Obama is a Democrat and we have a liberal-dominated Congress) and even if Huntsman is confirmed, WILL HE BE ABLE TO DO THE JOB (i.e. is he competent)? Only time can give us the answer to those questions.