And they're off...names (cf the FT) are circulating, opinions are being given on who may or may not stand, rules - spoken and unspoken - are being dusted off, while that old local authority recruitment injunction 'canvassing will disqualify' might never have existed.
Angels are for Condoleeza Rice.
Such a clever woman: civilised, pragmatic, competent, successful yet discreet. Ideally qualified as a political scientist with a profound understanding of the former Soviet Union (more underdeveloped than that is hard to beat); there are enough economists in the World Bank to sink a battleship and it's politics that matter in the world right now, not economics when we all know what needs to be done and where. It's the doing it that needs outstanding expertise.
The Bloomberg editorialist is calling for non-Americans to be in the running:
"... it should go without saying that many extremely able candidates are available for the World Bank job [Job? This isn't a job - it's the presidency of an institution wielding American power. Why on Earth (seeing as we're coming over all global) should America have to find and nurture a suitable poodle? Go for the real thing.] who don’t happen to be American. To exclude them at the outset is indefensible. Obama should see this as an opportunity not just to appoint an excellent new leader of the World Bank but also to start a new chapter in global economic governance."
And 'a new chapter in global economic governance' wouldn't start from the World Bank now, would it? And if it could then America is not going to have a non-American in charge, are they?
The Observer seriously puts forward the candidacy of Geoffrey Sachs.
It doesn't happen often, but words fail me. Conceited, superficial, boastful, intellectually under-powered....... as I said - words fail me.
"What is morality?"
2 hours ago