To me, more of the same. McCann made the points framing the basic contrast between the two PR approaches within 24 hours of the event. Everything since then is just beating the drum.
Attacking embassy property is terrorism by definition, and the president said that very thing immediately. The motivations for that are myriad and open to speculation. The event played out in a time frame of many protests about the video. On the other hand it was a 9-11 anniversary. Planned in advance? probably. Played out under cover of the video context? Probably.
The delays and lack of robustness in the response are legitimate stories, but there have already been more than 30 hearings about the incident. Yes, there is dirty laundry. Get over it.
To me, the Republicans repeated budget delays of spending intended to beef up embassy defenses is the bigger story, but not as sexy, and very speculative as to its relationship to the incident. Even so, Sec. Clinton did request funding for better embassy defense and those requests were cut by smaller government types.