What?! No New Wolfowitz? Why?

Why is there no Wolfowitz successor ready to go?

I find it stunning that after at least six weeks of the Paul Wolfowitz soap opera at the World Bank, there's no replacement ready to go.

It's not like his resignation was exactly unanticipated. Yet yesterday, as Wolfowitz's exit was prepared, the administration insisted that he stick around until June 30 so that a successor could be chosen.

Leaving aside whether or not you think Wolfowitz's forced resignation was appropriate--it seems eminently so to me--it certainly made sense for the administration to be ready to go with a successor who would have the credibility to get the bank back on track and advance American interests.

Yet we're left this morning not with a Rose Garden announcement of a successor but idle speculation about successors, some of which sound fine and others which are less than inspiring.

On the positive side, there's the hyper competent Robert Zoellick, the former U.S. Trade Representative and veteran of the State and Treasury departments as well as Fannie Mae (okay, we can forgive him that.)

But the suggestion of Robert Kimmitt is depressing. Kimmit was criticized for his handling of the Dubai ports situation and became famous for vetting Dan Quayle's selection as Vice President in 1988 where he managed not to anticipate the controversy over how the Indiana Senator managed to avoid Vietnam service.

Is there a home run choice to be had, though? Bob Rubin? Stan O'Neal? Someone?