Ambassadoritis
The dispute between Venezuela and the United States over ambassadors borders on childish. Larry Palmer made disparaging comments about Venezuelan politics, which included asserting a link between the Venezuelan government and the FARC. It should be obvious to everyone that someone who made such comments publicly would never be able to work with the Venezuelan government, and therefore should not be ambassador. But once that poor choice was made, the Obama administration does not want to look like it is backing down, and so instead has upped the ante by taking away the Venezuelan ambassador's visa. But let's face it, you cannot cram an unwanted ambassador down a country's throat.
Now the Venezuelan government says the whole thing is about imperialism and aggression, with typical bluster. I would argue that it is more about hegemony and exceptionalism than anything else. Being the predominant power for so long has fostered the pervasive belief that our decisions are best, and that the views of Latin American governments are unimportant. Take our chosen ambassador and shut up.
But this needs to get sorted out. Larry Palmer is not going to work, while in my opinion Bernardo Alvarez Herrera has been a good ambassador (and for quite a long time), articulate and measured. The Obama administration will take a political hit from Republicans who will say he is caving in to their second favorite hemispheric nemesis. That result is far better than needlessly escalating a conflict that originated in Washington.