Henry cited a source inside a top GOP presidential campaign who said Clinton “looked presidential and was in command” and called the hearings a “total wipeout” for GOP members. Van Susteren agreed, saying Clinton’s performance was closer to the politician she had watched over the years than the tentative, stumbling Clinton of this campaign so far.

Of course, Henry and van Susteren are parts of Fox’s news crew. Bill O’Reilly, one of the network’s talking heads, focused not on how the hearings had gone but on whether Clinton was trustworthy.

At the Washington Examiner, columnist Byron York was similarly damning about the proceedings, though he blamed Clinton and committee Democrats for throwing things off track:

A hearing billed as an epic, High Noon-style confrontation—granted, the hype came from the media, not Republican committee members themselves—instead turned out to be a somewhat interesting look at a few limited aspects of the Benghazi affair. In other words, no big deal. And that is very, very good news for Hillary Clinton.

Newseum

Ashe Schow concurred: “She appeared competent, but she didn’t ‘wow’ anyone. The fact of the matter is that Ms. Clinton simply has to show up and not fail, and she will be declared a winner.” The Boston Herald, a right-leaning tabloid, blared that “HILLARY SKATES THROUGH MARATHON BENGHAZI HEARING,” with a picture of a bored-looking Clinton resting her chin on her hand.

Erick Erickson argues that Benghazi remains worthy of investigation, but dismissed Thursday’s hearing as a manner of achieving that.

The hearings are a waste of time because everything about it is politicized and nothing is going to happen. There will be no scalp collection. In fact, it is clear from today’s hearing that Rep. Trey Gowdy and Rep. Peter Roskam seem to be the only two people on the committee of either party who are capable of asking exacting, precise questions. Most of the rest of the committee just wants to grandstand for the folks back home as either prosecutors of or defenders of Hillary Clinton.

Moreover, he added, “Mrs. Clinton too is far too bright to be trapped in this or any questions.”

The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes had a similar view—grudging respect for Clinton’s appearance as theater, resentment at the substance of what she said, and frustration with the way Republicans carried themselves during the hearing:

The coverage of the hearings—from the earliest tweets to the final page-one wraps—focused almost entirely on the style of Clinton’s performance rather than the substance of her testimony. And it must be said: She was impressive. Clinton was unflappable even as some Republicans on the panel took gratuitous shots at her, spun personal theories about her motives, and even questioned whether she cared about the fate of the survivors of those attacks. But she was “impressive” only if the words that passed her lips were immaterial to evaluating her overall presentation.

Some conservative reporters zeroed in on a discussion over the cause of the events—were they a planned terrorist attack, or a spontaneous demonstration by people upset about a video about Islam? “It took two and a half hours, but Republicans members of the House Select Committee on Benghazi just dropped a bombshell on former secretary of state Hillary Clinton,” wrote National Review’s Brendan Bordelon. Sharyl Attkisson made a similar case. (Clinton said that the U.S understanding of what had happened was fluid, and that she continues to believe the video played a role in the attack.)