Her background is impressive and goes back to covering Watergate. She has been on 60 minutes for a couple of decades = so - rightly or wrongly - I always saw her more in the "Rather" mode than the "Logan" mode.
I am not surprised that the question on those appearances was asked. It was CW in the media - that even with them, Susan Rice was the clear choice for Secretary of State. (In fact, Kerry was always a very real choice as well. He had already proved his ability as a diplomat - even without the job. I seriously doubt that Rice would have gotten the CW deal - or even would have worked that angle. ) But to the media it was ONLY those appearances that stopped her. As a result asking if she wishes she would not have done them and saying EXPLICITLY that otherwise she would being calling her "Secretary of State" is obviously one of the more newsworthy questions to ask Rice.
Another reason for asking is that at the moment, I assume that more people know Susan Rice's name just from that controversy than for her years as a Democratic foreign policy spokesperson, UN ambassador, or as the NSA head. Not to mention, the gist of what people - on any political side - know of that is that what she said was possibly a lie at the time. (For the RW, it was a lie - for everyone else, it was at least inaccurate.) This may mean that positions - like NSA- are where she will spend her career. Note that is not all that bad - it is a very powerful positions that mean she has a voice in the inner circle on foreign policy.
One thing to think of is that her appearances - after an awful event - did manage to tamp down Republican efforts to use Benghazi to change perception on Obama's strength in national security and foreign policy. Their goal was that if they did this successfully, Obama would lose in November. (I suspect that people were not voting on FP in 2012. Romney defined himself clearly (and unappealingly) when he was heard speaking of the 47%.) However, for some Republicans, they may always see her "lies" as why Romney did not win. For them, they may NEVER vote to confirm her for anything - as they feel cheated.
It may also be that both Obama and Clinton owe her big time for those appearances.
One other criticism I read of Stahl on this was her questions on Rice's spending time with her young kids. I didn't think this question was antagonistic and it humanized Rice to speak of her kids. On twitter there were some comments that neither Clinton or Kerry would have been asked such questions -- which simply ignores that their "children" are in their 30s!
= new reply since forum marked as read