At the level of mainstream politics (a level that, admittedly, doesn't represent my politics—the governing system/city I want to live in has yet to exist), picking Huntsman over Rice would be an incredibly smart move for a number of reasons, some of which are mentioned in this post by a political science student, Siv Cheruvu:

The arguments against Susan Rice’s nomination and subsequent confirmation as secretary of State have mainly centered on her misleading the American public on the Sunday talk shows following the September 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Richard Grenell tried to distinguish his opposition to Rice by commenting on her “miserable UN record.” However, the reason to not give the nod to Susan Rice is much simpler: Jon Huntsman is the better choice.

You may be asking “didn’t Huntsman run for the Republican nomination for president?” Yes, Huntsman wanted the GOP endorsement and was easily the most moderate candidate on stage. A significant part of the criticism against him in the primaries was his involvement in the Obama administration as the U.S. ambassador to China.

But here are my reasons, one which overlaps with Cheruvu's: First, there is no real ideological difference between Rice, Huntsman, and Hillary. Two, Huntsman is a Republican, and the position in American politics that Republicans really should occupy is the one currently occupied by Obama—Dems need to move more left of that position. So, selecting Huntsman would show the GOP that, indeed, this is where they should stand on things—exactly where Obama stands now. Lastly, the guy speaks Chinese. You just have to respect that.

UPDATE: A link provided by Fnarf has lead me to doubt Huntsman's much-talked about (but rarely heard) mastery of Mandarin. Maybe it's best he stay in Utah.