no more than Condie Rice or Powell. She gets to do what Obama wants her to do, only on foreign policy, to the exclusion of what she spent her last 40 years doing (domestic work about people). If she takes it (and I am still not convinced), it is a great problem out of Obama's side.
In addition remember, Kerry is not only the chair of the Foreign relation, a big role: all you have to see if the effort not to get Feingold there if you do not want to believe if it is a big thing. If it was not, why would have people plotted to see if they could skip Feingold in case Kerry went to the executive. He is also an important player on Commerce, and most senior member on small business (he cant stay n 1 on two committees). If you do not want to believe it is an important role, up to you. The truth is that he gets a lot more freedom that he would have gotten at State, and can do a lot more to shape the foreign relations of the country, particularly as a trusted adviser of Obama (read the article I posted yesterday on what the chair can do. I posted it largely for you and wisteria).
BTW, Biden wanted it. He had said in 2004 that, given a choice between SoS and SFRC chair, he wanted SFRC chair, not State. The only way he was interested in State, he said, was if the Dems did not have the majority in the Senate. So, it is ludicrous to say that Biden did not want it.
I want him to get respect, but I also believe he wants to serve more than being in this for his personal glory. If he was not, he would have ran for president way before he did. Remember he had been in the Senate for 20 years when he ran, a lot more than Biden, Gore, Harkin, and a lot of other players who did not even get close to become President.
Do I want Kerry to get recognition, Yes. Does he get it: not enough to my taste. Does those you think are important players get recognition: except for the Clintons and Obama, and Kennedy at this point:NO. Durbin, Boxer, Feingold, all the progressive idols of the Senate or elsewhere, do not get recognition either. You need to stop beating yourself on this.
ADDED: Here is another article that may make you see what it is about. It is NOT that Kerry is being slighted. It is in fact that Clinton does not have enough seniority in the Senate to play a leadership role and will not have before a very long time. She wants more and for her, more could be SoS, not necessarily for Kerry:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_11/015755.php
MAKING THE SENATE MORE ENTICING TO CLINTON.... If you believe the reports, Hillary Clinton's departure from the Senate to become the Secretary of State is a done deal. I suspect it probably is, but one of the more common questions about the move is why Clinton would want to give up a great, long-term gig in the Senate for a tough, short-term gig in Foggy Bottom.
Part of the problem for Clinton is that her seniority isn't doing her any favors. There's been all kinds of shuffling with the committee chairs since the election, driven in part by Robert Byrd's decision to give up the Appropriations Committee, but Clinton is left without a gavel of her own. It's no one's fault, and she isn't being deliberately slighted, but there hasn't been enough movement on her specific committees to give Clinton a chance to move up. It must be frustrating for someone anxious for a promotion.
...
Note the difference: Kerry has the gavel of one of the big committees. Hillary Clinton not only does not, but she does not have the gavel of a smaller cabinet, like Kerry had. So, it is no surprise she may be restless moving up (by leaving the Senate if needed) why Kerry is not.