Well, you called it his one show of passion. I would say it was his usual show of indignation which is his default response whenever he feels defensive or backed into a corner. You know, “How dare you attack my UN ambassador?” And he gives the strangest defense by saying, “She didn’t have anything to do with the Benghazi affair.” Well then why the hell are you sending her out there? Why don’t you send, why didn’t you send out the Secretary of State or the CIA director or Panetta or somebody who did know?
And then he does play this sort of Lancelot defending the mistress in distress. You know, it made Mitt Romney and the binders with women look positively feminist in comparison. This kind of patronizing attack on the two male Senators who would dare attack the girl, which is what was intended in his tone. This is all its usual, you know, if you attack his pride he’ll strike you on that. And it was clearly defensive, and it was also a stonewall.
I mean, after all, what she said was absolutely and completely misleading either inadvertently, in which case is complete incompetence, or on purpose in which case it’s deception. And he basically he took the bait on that and said, “Look, that wasn’t her speaking. That was me speaking. If you want to pick on somebody, pick on me.”
Well how can anybody pick on him or even question him if he hasn’t had a press conference in eight months? You know, he clearly hasn’t been out there. He’s been hiding behind inquiries, behind investigations, and now behind Susan Rice.
But now I think he’s out there, and he’s vulnerable on this. I think he may regret having said that.