Picking Biden's Cabinet

[DMC]

Hmm...Lujan Grisham turned down Interior post, says transition source:

Quote

 

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) turned down an offer to serve in President-elect Joe Biden’s Cabinet as Interior secretary, a source close to the transition told The Hill. 

Grisham is believed to be interested in a position as Health and Human Services secretary in a Biden administration given her work on healthcare, and CNN reported Wednesday afternoon that she was the lead contender for that position. 

But the source who spoke to The Hill said transition sources don't know where "the HHS claims are coming from."

 

As the OP states, I prefer Lujan Grisham at HHS and Haaland at Interior, so I guess I shouldn't be discouraged by this.  Just hope (if it's true) that her turning down Interior doesn't take her out of the running for HHS.

[DMC]

Biden announced his top covid team today:

Quote

Transition co-chair and former Obama administration official Jeff Zients is set to serve as the White House’s Covid-19 coordinator and Vivek Murthy, the former U.S. surgeon general under Obama, will return to that role, but with a broader portfolio that will include acting as the top medical expert and public face of the effort.

Marcella Nunez-Smith, a co-chair of Biden’s Covid-19 advisory board, will also take a key role in the administration’s response, focused on health disparities.

I suspect these picks will be paired with the HHS nominee in an official announcement soon.  Zients' corporate background will piss off progressives, but as an interagency coordinator he's ideal for the role - as the piece mentioned he is largely credited with fixing the the huge issues with the rollout of the ACA's enrollment portal.  In that respect, Jeff Hauser of the Revolving Door Project had a more nuanced perspective on the choice:

Quote

“It’s definitely less concerning than him getting placed at NEC or OMB,” said Jeff Hauser, the director of the Revolving Door Project at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, noting that much of the pandemic coordination role will be “purely logistical.” [...]

“Our basic take is that the less Zients is in a position to assess the prospects for wealthy people and corporations to become more wealthy, the better,” he said. “I’m not saying he’s without skill, but I think you can have people in government who don’t see surprise medical billing as a profit center.”

 

[Fragile Bird]

In terms of the experienced people Biden has been picking, I read an article somewhere in the last few weeks that there is a certain sense of dread in the Biden camp about what his various picks are going to find when they take up their positions. No one knows how bad the situation is going to be, how much damage was done, in departments across the government. People who know what they’re doing are needed because it’s known that there have been Trump appointees who have been deliberately causing harm in their departments.

On top of that, I also saw a story the other day that rather than leaving their positions, there are many Trump hires who are burrowing themselves into their jobs. I just skimmed the article, but I gather there is a process where you can convert your job from a temporary partisan appointment into a permanent job that has more protection, in that it is more difficult to fire them. I’ve understood for decades that when a new administration comes in there’s always a massive changeover because the partisan hires pack up and move out and are replaced by people chosen by the new team in power. While it’s not uncommon for some people to remain in their jobs through this conversion process, the numbers are higher than usual. Trumpanistas bent on becoming a new part of the deep state.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

In terms of the experienced people Biden has been picking, I read an article somewhere in the last few weeks that there is a certain sense of dread in the Biden camp about what his various picks are going to find when they take up their positions. No one knows how bad the situation is going to be, how much damage was done, in departments across the government. People who know what they’re doing are needed because it’s known that there have been Trump appointees who have been deliberately causing harm in their departments.

Yeah, there was a quote from some article on Biden's picks - specifically his national security team but it could go for virtually all of them thus far - that went something like "if you woke any of them up in the middle of the night, they'd be prepared to ably do their job in any position by that morning."  That's clearly what Biden's going for, and it's desperately needed to repair what the Trump administration did to the bureaucracy.

11 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Trumpanistas bent on becoming a new part of the deep state.

Heh, I'm not really concerned about that.  What should be interesting is if, or how many of, Trump's US Attorneys refuse to resign.  They may be looking to do this for revenge after Preet Bharara refused to resign when Sessions demanded the resignations of all Obama appointees.

[SFDanny]

So is Deval Patrick the favorite now for AG? I understand we are to see the roll out of the HHS Secretary next week, and I hope it is Gov. Lujan Grisham, and I assume we will have more people named in the anti-COVID effort, but I haven't seen anything on when they expect to name other Cabinet nominees. Got to believe Defense Secretary and Attorney General can't be too far down the line.

[DMC]

13 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Got to believe Defense Secretary and Attorney General can't be too far down the line.

Yeah you gotta figure they'll be at least leaked if not announced within the next week.  There does seem to be a holdup with both of them.  I think the seeming holdup with announcing picks generally may be the difficulty in finding a right balance of diversity while simultaneously dealing with candidates/preferred nominees turning the position(s) down.  The latter is a blackbox, but it's not hard to imagine how complicated things can get really quickly when you're trying to represent various constituencies.

As for Patrick, he does seem to be getting mentioned more for AG.  Dunno if I'd call him the favorite.  Hopefully HHS gets announced/leaked soon.  Raimondo took herself out of the running due to progressive backlash.  Also seen reports Lujan Grisham has fallen out of favor due to turning down Interior and "trying to orchestrate" her appointment to HHS.  That'd be unfortunate.  Who knows, growing tired of trying to read the tea leaves. 

[SFDanny]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah you gotta figure they'll be at least leaked if not announced within the next week.  There does seem to be a holdup with both of them.  I think the seeming holdup with announcing picks generally may be the difficulty in finding a right balance of diversity while simultaneously dealing with candidates/preferred nominees turning the position(s) down.  The latter is a blackbox, but it's not hard to imagine how complicated things can get really quickly when you're trying to represent various constituencies.

As for Patrick, he does seem to be getting mentioned more for AG.  Dunno if I'd call him the favorite.  Hopefully HHS gets announced/leaked soon.  Raimondo took herself out of the running due to progressive backlash.  Also seen reports Lujan Grisham has fallen out of favor due to turning down Interior and "trying to orchestrate" her appointment to HHS.  That'd be unfortunate.  Who knows, growing tired of trying to read the tea leaves. 

I'm reading HHS will be this week as part of the focus on COVID. I'm guessing that means AG and Secretary of Defense will follow either late in the week or the following week. I'm still hoping to see Lujan Grisham as the pick. 

One idea I wanted to float for discussion here was that I had read Angus King had been discussed as ODNI but was obviously not chosen. What do you think about head of the CIA? Not sure if he is interested, but it would open a Senate seat for a Democratic Governor to appoint his replacement. I remember Susan Rice briefly threw her name in as a possible challenger for Susan Collins, and I was surprised she didn't get the Secretary of State job. I'm not really sure if she even lives in Maine, but I'm intrigued with the idea that Biden might have other ideas for her.

The picks I'm most interested to see how Biden decides are in Justice, Defense, Interior, and Agriculture. Patrick, Flournoy, Haaland, and Fudge look good to me. Education seems to be settled on one of the two Union heads and either would be such a marked improvement after DeVos that I can't think there would any challenge in Democratic ranks to either one. The only concern I have around the Labor Secretary is that picking Levin might mean loosing a special election. Transportation and Energy need to go to competent leaders in the field because these agencies will be critical in a future green economy. Commerce I don't care. Let a token never Trumper Republican have that position. I assume Mayor Bottoms will be the new HUD Secretary, and she would be a good choice. Veteran's Affairs could be a place for Tammy Duckworth. She would bring the right perspective to the job. Who else am I leaving out? Oh, the EPA. I'm assuming EPA will be a Cabinet level post, and I'm hoping Jay Inslee gets the job. We need his leadership on these issues.

USTR is not a Cabinet level position, if I'm not mistaken, but it is important. However I have to admit I've no thoughts on who might be a good choice.

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

I'm reading HHS will be this week as part of the focus on COVID. I'm guessing that means AG and Secretary of Defense will follow either late in the week or the following week. I'm still hoping to see Lujan Grisham as the pick. 

Right, I'm assuming HHS will be rolled out with Murthy and the rest of the covid team (much of which has already been announced).  I think it's  possible, however, that Raimondo and Lujan Grisham were Biden's top two choices and now they're doing a bit of scrambling there considering the former has pulled out and apparently they might have soured on the latter.  Regardless, I'd expect AG and Defense to at least be leaked by next weekend as I'm sure the team wants those key positions to have some separation from the holidays.

As for King I suppose it's possible.  I suspect Biden wants more of a careerist/operative at CIA (even more so than DNI), but with Donilon out and the difficulties with Morell, maybe?  Still sounds like David Cohen would be the fallback.  I don't think getting Rice into that Senate seat is part of Biden's calculus though.

In terms of the rest of the Cabinet I still, obviously, prefer those I mentioned in the OP.  Patrick would help with the diversity aspect, but appointing him as AG is likely to rankle many progressives.  For Labor, I still really do think Julie Su is a very attractive third way that circumvents the intra-union battle between Marty Walsh and Andy Levin.  I also think she'd simply be better at the job than either.  Duckworth would of course be great at VA, but big picture I don't think such a low-level post is worth risking a newcomer in that seat come 2022.  Plus, frankly, Senator of Illinois is considerably more prestigious and powerful than VA Secretary, so I'm skeptical she'd even accept.  On Inslee, he would have been ideal for Kerry's position.  Who knows if he was offered that or not, but I don't see him leaving the governorship for EPA.

On Cabinet-level status, this is largely trivial, but it looks like the amount of Cabinet-level positions under Biden may rival the actual Cabinet.  The USTR has consistently been a Cabinet-level position since at least Carter IIRC, and I don't think that's changing.  So, right now under Trump, you got CoS, USTR, DNI, CIA, EPA, SBA, and OMB.  Biden has already announced he's going to elevate UN Ambassador (it's been back and forth since Bush I - mostly in terms of Republicans demoting it in status and Dems re-elevating), Kerry's post, and CEA chair (also demoted under GOP presidents while cabinet-level under Clinton and Obama). 

Then, who knows maybe some other positions - perhaps Surgeon General or Covid Czar to highlight its importance.  Carter elevated NSA to Cabinet-level status for Brzezinski.  Pretty sure that's the only time that happened, but maybe Biden does that too.  Hell, I've never understood why the chair of the CEA is cabinet-level but not the chair of the NEC considering the latter generally is more influential with/has more access to the president.  That's all probably not gonna happen, but it's part of my effort to make the Cabinet-level positions as large as the actual Cabinet.  That's right, this is how I spend my free time.

[SFDanny]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Right, I'm assuming HHS will be rolled out with Murthy and the rest of the covid team (much of which has already been announced).  I think it's  possible, however, that Raimondo and Lujan Grisham were Biden's top two choices and now they're doing a bit of scrambling there considering the former has pulled out and apparently they might have soured on the latter.  Regardless, I'd expect AG and Defense to at least be leaked by next weekend as I'm sure the team wants those key positions to have some separation from the holidays.

Are you saying that Murthy is the pick for HHS Secretary? Because the reports I'm seeing say he will be in his old role as Surgeon General. I'm not seeing anyone saying that a pick for HHS Secretary has been made. Am I right in that? I have also seen the reports that seem that someone is being critical of Lujan Grisham for pushing to be HHS secretary, but I put that in the same category of the shots that took place against Harris in the last weeks leading up to her being named VP. Is there another candidate you think has the likely nod?

3 hours ago, DMC said:

As for King I suppose it's possible.  I suspect Biden wants more of a careerist/operative at CIA (even more so than DNI), but with Donilon out and the difficulties with Morell, maybe?  Still sounds like David Cohen would be the fallback.  I don't think getting Rice into that Senate seat is part of Biden's calculus though.

Just a wild thought on my part about Rice. I would think Biden would want to keep the CIA position as far away from the torture controversy of the Bush years. Which makes me think someone like King could work. Someone in the Leon Panetta mold. A skilled outsider. i could well be wrong on this, of course.

4 hours ago, DMC said:

In terms of the rest of the Cabinet I still, obviously, prefer those I mentioned in the OP.  Patrick would help with the diversity aspect, but appointing him as AG is likely to rankle many progressives.

The progressives I'm worried about are those in the civil rights movement and movement for ending police brutality and  killings. Patrick would be acceptable to those movement leaders, I believe. Less so to those who are looking for people who have no connection to corporate boards. It is critical that Biden appoints someone who is committed to civil rights and Patrick fits that bill. I'm pretty sure if you asked the leaders of the NAACP, the Urban League, and many other civil rights organization which cabinet position is most critical for their agenda, it would be Attorney General. Which makes me think this will be Patrick's job. We will see shortly, I think.

4 hours ago, DMC said:

For Labor, I still really do think Julie Su is a very attractive third way that circumvents the intra-union battle between Marty Walsh and Andy Levin.  I also think she'd simply be better at the job than either. 

I know Levin's union connections, but I must confess I don't know who Walsh represents among unions. Enlighten me. I'm not opposed to Su, btw. I'm only opposed to Levin over the concern for losing his seat. Any pro-labor candidate is fine by me, and I don't think Biden would nominate anyone who wasn't that.

4 hours ago, DMC said:

Duckworth would of course be great at VA, but big picture I don't think such a low-level post is worth risking a newcomer in that seat come 2022.  Plus, frankly, Senator of Illinois is considerably more prestigious and powerful than VA Secretary, so I'm skeptical she'd even accept.  

My thinking here is along the lines of your first thought. She has the makings of a great VA Secretary in a Department that sorely needs one. I haven't a clue whether she would accept the offer. I also don't know who would be the likely pick to replace her in the Senate, so it is hard to figure the odds of loosing the seat in 2022. 

4 hours ago, DMC said:

  On Inslee, he would have been ideal for Kerry's position.  Who knows if he was offered that or not, but I don't see him leaving the governorship for EPA.

That would be too bad. Again he would make a great EPA director. He could bring a comprehensive understanding of climate change issues to an agency that needs a complete overhaul from the Trump years. He could make a much greater difference here than by staying the Governor of Washington.

4 hours ago, DMC said:

On Cabinet-level status, this is largely trivial, but it looks like the amount of Cabinet-level positions under Biden may rival the actual Cabinet.  The USTR has consistently been a Cabinet-level position since at least Carter IIRC, and I don't think that's changing.  So, right now under Trump, you got CoS, USTR, DNI, CIA, EPA, SBA, and OMB.  Biden has already announced he's going to elevate UN Ambassador (it's been back and forth since Bush I - mostly in terms of Republicans demoting it in status and Dems re-elevating), Kerry's post, and CEA chair (also demoted under GOP presidents while cabinet-level under Clinton and Obama). 

Then, who knows maybe some other positions - perhaps Surgeon General or Covid Czar to highlight its importance.  Carter elevated NSA to Cabinet-level status for Brzezinski.  Pretty sure that's the only time that happened, but maybe Biden does that too.  Hell, I've never understood why the chair of the CEA is cabinet-level but not the chair of the NEC considering the latter generally is more influential with/has more access to the president.  That's all probably not gonna happen, but it's part of my effort to make the Cabinet-level positions as large as the actual Cabinet.  That's right, this is how I spend my free time.

I'm glad you do spend your time on these details, because I learn things from reading the results. Like USTR is already a Cabinet level position. I stand corrected. Thanks.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, SFDanny said:

Are you saying that Murthy is the pick for HHS Secretary? Because the reports I'm seeing say he will be in his old role as Surgeon General. I'm not seeing anyone saying that a pick for HHS Secretary has been made. Am I right in that?

Yes, you're right in that, sorry if my wording is confusing.  I meant I expect them to roll out the HHS pick along with Murthy as SG and the rest of the covid team.  On Lujan Grisham, I too am skeptical of the recent reporting - which is why I tried to couch it with dubious language.  However, generally, I do think something went on there (whether it was turning down the Interior post or something else) because if not I'd think she'd already had been offered the job and clearly she wants to accept.  Regardless, and somewhat amusingly (in a shake your head sort of way), the Biden team is already getting backlash for their apparent treatment of Lujan Grisham solely based on such rumors/leaks.

On CIA I agree Biden probably wants to steer clear of the Dubya/torture years, just like Obama did, hence why I don't expect Morell to get the job after Wyden and others expressed publicly signaled their concerns.  However, in that vein, David Cohen still works - it was widely thought Obama chose him as Deputy Director at CIA for the exact same reason, to avoid picking someone with ties to torture/EITs.  I also see CIA as more of an administrative role while DNI is more of an advisory role which would have fit King better, but that's more just my own bureaucratic biases.  Obviously any agency head can delegate a more expansive administrative role to her deputy.

On Patrick as AG, I agree that those concerned with policing/civil rights should be very happy with him.  The latter is his DOJ experience after all.  What I was referring to was his rather extensive "big money" ties which - I'm sure you've heard  - is already becoming an issue with Biden's choices.  Those would be considerably amplified (and likely in their perspective provoked) if someone with Patrick's background was chosen for such a high profile position.

2 hours ago, SFDanny said:

I know Levin's union connections, but I must confess I don't know who Walsh represents among unions. Enlighten me.

See here:

Quote

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and some of his organization’s largest affiliate unions are singing the praises of Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, who previously led the city’s Building and Construction Trades Council and could appeal to construction workers who supported President Donald Trump. But other unions in the federation are publicly pushing Rep. Andy Levin, a Michigan Democrat who worked as a labor organizer and ran the state’s job training program before he was elected.

I agree that losing Levin's seat is a concern I'd much prefer to avoid as well.  Unlike Haaland's, his seat is poachable.  Unless of course the Levins can drum up someone else from their family.

On Duckworth I actually think she can "do more good," in the broad and unquantifiable sense, by staying Senator rather than going back to the VA.  No idea who would replace her either, just assuming it'd be a more difficult hold than if she ran for reelection.  On Inslee I agree he could do more good as EPA chief, just a gut feeling that's not gonna get him out of the governor's seat.  I wouldn't really judge him either way, he's done a good job dealing with covid for Washington, which obviously is important too and the job isn't done yet.

[DMC]

Axios is reporting Tom Vilsack at Agriculture (again) and Marcia Fudge at HUD.  Really ugh to the Vilsack pick.  If you're gonna pick a white male, can it at least be a younger white male?  Biden emphasized he was going to be a "transitional" president, but thus far his cabinet is looking almost as old and retread-y as him himself.  Fudge at HUD also seems like an almost offensive token pick rather than putting more younger, progressive, and interesting candidates in there.  I'm getting quite disappointed by how the overall makeup is shaking out.

[DanteGabriel]

16 hours ago, DMC said:

Axios is reporting Tom Vilsack at Agriculture (again) and Marcia Fudge at HUD.  Really ugh to the Vilsack pick.  If you're gonna pick a white male, can it at least be a younger white male?  Biden emphasized he was going to be a "transitional" president, but thus far his cabinet is looking almost as old and retread-y as him himself.  Fudge at HUD also seems like an almost offensive token pick rather than putting more younger, progressive, and interesting candidates in there.  I'm getting quite disappointed by how the overall makeup is shaking out.

Vilsack and Austin are pretty disappointing. 

Buttigieg for Ambassador to China? Does he actually want that? Seems like a poisoned chalice to me. I don't have much optimism about dealing with the Chinese government.

[Week]

50 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Vilsack and Austin are pretty disappointing. 

Buttigieg for Ambassador to China? Does he actually want that? Seems like a poisoned chalice to me. I don't have much optimism about dealing with the Chinese government.

Agreed - Vilsack particularly as another old white dude.

https://www.axios.com/pete-buttigieg-china-ambassador-biden-80aa9cc5-35a2-4205-836a-ca11d8af8f07.html

I was surprised to read about Buttigieg and China - as well as the history of that ambassadorship. Even in light of all that, it doesn't seem like it makes a ton of sense for him.

Maybe if Domestic policy is very much a "transitional" group then it makes sense from Pete's perspective to dive in at a later date? Though, I hope, at that point he either has "evolved" to a more progressives view or he'll be a bit on the outside looking in. Again, assuming a transition for insanity, to normalcy, to then more progressively to the left. We'll see 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

Buttigieg for Ambassador to China? Does he actually want that? Seems like a poisoned chalice to me. I don't have much optimism about dealing with the Chinese government.

I agree that it's more politically fraught than one of the domestic policy-oriented positions he may have a chance at getting as mentioned in the Axios post Week linked.  I also agree, from the standpoint of his political future, that one of those posts would be better by focusing on shoring up his clear weakness with minorities.  I don't think voters would care much, but he could build relationship with activists/interests groups that could be very helpful to future electoral prospects.  

OTOH, if he's intent on a foreign policy position, Ambassador to China isn't a bad consolation to the UN post he clearly wants.  Plus it's a good way to position himself next in line for UN in a Biden/Democratic administration.  While it is riskier politically, at the same time there is more upside there too.  If the Biden administration is able to significantly improve relations with China (granted, a big if), he can claim a lot of the credit.

[DanteGabriel]

56 minutes ago, Week said:

Agreed - Vilsack particularly as another old white dude.

https://www.axios.com/pete-buttigieg-china-ambassador-biden-80aa9cc5-35a2-4205-836a-ca11d8af8f07.html

I was surprised to read about Buttigieg and China - as well as the history of that ambassadorship. Even in light of all that, it doesn't seem like it makes a ton of sense for him.

Maybe if Domestic policy is very much a "transitional" group then it makes sense from Pete's perspective to dive in at a later date? Though, I hope, at that point he either has "evolved" to a more progressives view or he'll be a bit on the outside looking in. Again, assuming a transition for insanity, to normalcy, to then more progressively to the left. We'll see 

Thanks for that article, some interesting reasoning there. Apparently the China post could be seen as a way to burnish foreign policy cred for future Presidential aspirations. Still seems like a pretty risky job with a ton of complications, where success might not earn him enough cred (not that I know what a successful relationship with China is supposed to look like) and failure could doom his political future, plus I'm not sure it's a job that gets enough attention to serve Buttigieg's own purposes.

[Ran]

On Buttigieg and China, interstingly the former Mexican ambassador to China had this advice:

So at least his experience as Mexican ambassador was that the Chinese don't really use embassies for any serious business.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

So at least his experience as Mexican ambassador was that the Chinese don't really use embassies for any serious business.

Heh, the wording of that tweet confused me - had me wondering and looking up if the US embassy was in Beijing (it is).  Anyway, not to cast Buttigieg in a negative light or impugn his motives, but presumably part of the reason he wants the China post is due to prestige.  It may be so that he could affect more China-based policy as Ambassador to Australia, but that post would not be too helpful to his political career.  In contrast, just look at the last four Ambassadors to China.  Three were former governors and the other was a former Senator.

[DMC]

Katherine Tai to be named USTR.  In contrast to my whining last night, all-around great pick!

Quote

A former China enforcement head at USTR who is fluent in Mandarin, backers say Tai has expertise that can help the U.S. confront Beijing on issues like forced labor and intellectual property rights while preserving a functioning trade relationship between the world’s two largest economies.

Lawmakers in both chambers were impressed by Tai’s handling of the negotiations in Congress with the Trump administration over changes sought to the U.S.-Mexico-Canada deal that replaced NAFTA. Her supporters say tough labor and environmental standards that she pushed to include in that pact could serve as a model for when the Biden team negotiates with reluctant countries for other trade deals.

Crucially for Biden, both labor and big business groups in Washington have privately signaled their openness to Tai as the nominee.

 

[Ran]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Three were former governors and the other was a former Senator.

Indeed. Ambassador of China is where old governors go to retire... unless you're Jon Huntsman and instead it's where would be presidential candidates go to crash and burn.

I really don't think ambassador to China is as much of a springboard to anything as it seems Buttigieg might. IMO, the suggestion of going for Australia strikes me as giving him some actual stuff he can say he accomplished whereas it sounds like ambassador to China is a glossy title with no chance at substance.

An ambassador to Australia who comes out with some joint diplomatic efforts in response to China, and is seen as perhaps helping to spearhead US entry into the CPTPP, would strike me as giving him something to actually say besides 'I was an ambassador'.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Ran said:

IMO, the suggestion of going for Australia strikes me as giving him some actual stuff he can say he accomplished whereas it sounds like ambassador to China is a glossy title with no chance at substance.

An ambassador to Australia who comes out with some joint diplomatic efforts in response to China, and is seen as perhaps helping to spearhead US entry into the CPTPP, would strike me as giving him something to actually say besides 'I was an ambassador'.

While I don't have any reason to doubt Guajardo that Beijing tends to ignore the diplomats - especially when it comes to relations with the US - I'm not sure how much substance he's really going to be able to accomplish as ambassador to Australia either.  I think it's dubious the Biden administration would rely on that post for policy advice or even high-level negotiations.  I do agree, though, that getting back into the CPTPP may be one way the post could do that.

As for the general point about the Chinese Ambassadorship as a springboard, I think the important thing for him is, again, it allows him to move to the top of the pile of CVs if/when UN opens up.  Since he clearly seems intent on rising in the diplomatic ranks (for whatever reason), going with the more prestigious as opposed to the potentially more substantive job aligns with his interests.