What he did was defend a woman working for him who did nothing wrong. It is clear he was defending her reputation. At the same time, he said that the decision was not yet made - which may or may not be completely true.

Assume for a moment that he was picking someone else, what would he then say? It would seem to me that he would say precisely what he did. In addition, he would in that case be happy that he had this opportunity.

As to the comment on Senator was good enough - I don't think you felt that was the case for Hillary Clinton after she failed to get the nomination. It was seen as she was "owed" something. In the case of Kerry, no one is saying that he should get this because of all he did for Obama, but rather because he is extraordinarily qualified for the job and has won praise for his diplomatic skills and the his incredible patience working with difficult leaders. Republicans, like Lugar and Corker, have regularly praised the way he has chaired the SFRC. In addition, even the Senators, like McCain and Graham, who voted against the START treaty were full of praise for Kerry's work in the committee and on the Senate floor.

I like Rice and think she is a good choice, but I think Kerry is an exceptional person, who could be a genuinely exceptional SOS. As to whether he deserves it, I think he has been more loyal to Democratic Presidents and nominees than any other person I can think of -- even when it was not to his self interest. (This was especially true when he, a genuine war hero, defended Clinton's patriotism in the wake of the problems Clinton had on his actions to avoid Vietnam. )