You are attacking the poster, not responding to the article.  Not attempting to discuss idears or things.  Hmmmm.  Seems to meet the definition of uncivil.  The only rational response is to assume the poster is making a joke.  Perhaps it would be better to state an opinion as to whether this particular candidate is the proper choice for ambassador?  Granted, the position is largely ceremonial with any actual real work being done by state department employees.  Which, of course, elevates the importance of the character of the candidate.  In this case, a person who carried on an affair with a married man.  What, exactly, is the message being sent with this nomination?  Money talks?  The spoils system is alive and well?   Hmmm, maybe that is more what should be discussed, rather than taking potshots at other poster?