Will the prospective Mideast envoys please stand up?

It's a lousy job, doesn't pay much and chances for success are slim. Nevertheless, the talk of Middle East special peace envoys never ceases to produce new supporters and new candidates. It is the tendency to look for technical solutions to the inherent problems of peace making - something my friend Will Saletan of Slate referred to almost five years ago when he wisely wrote about the "three languages of the peace process: Hebrew, Arabic, and bureaucratic bullshit."

The succession of envoys in Saletan's day included Mitchell, Tenet and Zinni - all men of distinct credence but unconvincing achievement in the region. Nevertheless, earlier this week, as Condi Rice was tiring herself on the rocky roads of the region, she was asked again about the prospect of a peace envoy, and she didn't rule it out. Her exact words: "I've not ruled out anything, Helene, but I think for now I have to be really actively involved. I don't think there's any substitute for that right now. But let's see how it evolves. I'm quite flexible on what geometry we use. I'm quite flexible on what mechanism we use. I'll want to go back and talk to my team and assess how we keep moving forward."

Yesterday, writing about Rice's trip, I mentioned some similarities between her current frustrating meetings, and those of James Baker a decade ago. "While she was going back and forth from Ramallah to Jerusalem, the cabinet allowed settlers to go to the settlement of Homesh in the northern West Bank, which was evacuated during the disengagement. A circle has been closed: Ariel Sharon welcomed Baker with a new settlement every time he came here."

Sure enough, Baker is the most-frequently-mentioned candidate to be a special mediator, especially by those seeking a mediator ready to confront the Israeli leadership. In 2004, candidate John Kerry "said he would consider sending Mr. Carter or Mr. Baker as his personal envoy to make peace between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs." He later said he regretted this comment.

My guest last week Prof. Ron Robin referred to Senator John McCain as someone harboring "a deep and ill-concealed animosity to Israel" and when asked for a reason for such harsh a judgment he explained that "McCain has often referred to Brent Scowcroft and Jim Baker as his referents on foreign policy, in general, and the middle east, in particular."

However, Baker is not the only possible candidate for this job. Other names have been mentioned in recent years, and the other day, in the Washington Post political blog The Fix I was surprised to discover yet another contender - Democratic attorney Bill Shaheen, the co-chair for Hilary Clinton's "national and state" campaign (a Lebanese-American and husband of former governor Jeanne Shaheen).

Here's what Shaheen has to say (quoted from a New Hampshire blog) about this coveted new job: "I know for a fact that Hillary is committed to peace in the Middle East and that she believes that helping the Israelis and the Palestinians find a peaceful solution to their problems is a big part of that. The only thing I made Hillary promise in return for helping on her campaign is that she will send me over to the Middle East to help her work for peace in the region."

When he was interviewed by The Fix he was more careful: "It wasn't a promise promise," he said, "I told her I feel strongly about it." Clinton, he said, told him: "I'm sure it's going to be a huge process."

Shaheen started his political career working for Jimmy Carter, another less-than-probable mediator, and joined him as an election monitor in the Palestinian elections. When he was asked about his plans for the job, his answer also sounded like Carter: "I think there are people who are not being treated very nicely. They want their own freedom." And I don't think he was referring to Israelis.