that it is women who are build relationships and are more diplomatic. While that may be true in general, look at the specific choice of Kerry and Rice. Nearly every article on Kerry mentioned how the son of a diplomat, interested in foreign policy since his youth, is very diplomatic and has built useful relationships around the world. In fact, that is why Obama used Kerry to deal with many tricky situations, including in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Sudan. This quote from a NYT magazine article really shows how uniquely useful he was:

I have no doubt that Rice is very smart and has impeccable credentials, but after a super star like Hillary she would be an almost non-entity in the world stage. Leaving aside her prickly personality and oil investments, I think that Kerry would be better for the job. He was a presidential nominee and already has a relationship with many world leaders.

He is a genuinely nice, very serious man with a very good sense of humor. As Deval Patrick said, he is an uncommonly decent man. I know from many MA contacts, most not from the internet, that he has often quietly, with no media, helped people who needed help.

Two of the 2004 testimonials that stayed with me, were from his crew.

But he drones on and on in public. That doesn't mean that I don't think that he would be a good SOS, far better than Rice.

As a public speaker, he is very very good - and there have been tens of times where people note, with surprise that a speech is excellent. (examples his 2008 and 2012 convention speeches.) He is actually a better speaker than Hillary Clinton.

There are few people who have a line they wrote and spoke repeated (correctly) over 30 years later - Kerry does and it couldn't cut to the heart of the issue more succinctly.

Ms. Rice is far from my favorite choice for this post-not right now, during these rough times in th ME. She is the wrong person at the wrong time.

But, it is interesting to see in recent days, all these "postive" commentatries regarding her.I question where they are being generated from, and I have to figure the President is waiting to see if she becomes more appealing to more people.

How does that make it a woman's job?

What I think is almost more interesting is that there have been a mix of people who were career diplomats and people who were politicians. (Powell and I am sure others fit in neither of those categories.) I suspect that those that were previously politicians, in general, had a higher profile than most career diplomats, but just as those looking at just the current and 2 previous administrations, I am looking mostly at the time I've lived through.

It also seems that each President/SOS define the role in different ways. Some mostly really manage the state department rather than delegating that, some are diplomatic trouble shooters (Kissinger), and some of strong foreign policy advisers, while most are some mix of these three functions. It may be that different people can fit different President's preferred vision of the SOS role. (ie Obama might not want a strong, more leftish voice in his inner circle - which Kerry clearly would be. If so, even with Kerry.s KNOWN diplomatic skills and his international relationships,which Obama can continue to use occasionally even if he is in the Senate, he might not want him on the national security team.) The really ironic thing now is that the left has been snookered into demanding the possible nominee who is to his right on the environment and foreign policy due to the Republican temper tantrum.

if Obama picks him for SOS. I think that it would be unfair to deny him a plum spot because of his current job. Aside from the fact that he would be a better SOS than Rice. The more I hear about Rice, the more I am sure that Kerry would be a better choice. She seems to have ticked off many in the international community with her, as described, "prickly" personality. Her multimillion dollar investments in oil companies are also a concern.