Was Candy Crowley the loser of the debate?

posted at 1:21 pm on October 17, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

I don’t think I’d call her a “winner,” not after having to retreat from her strange fact-checking interjection on Benghazi last night.  As more than one pundit has either written, Tweeted, or said last night and this morning, if you’re going to fact check in the middle of a debate you’re moderating, you’d better be sure you have the facts straight yourself.  Otherwise, you end up having to go on your own network, where you’ve already been fact-checked in the negative, and dance your statement back:

The debate last night reminded Matt Latimer of the Daily Beast of all the reasons why he hates these debates, a feeling which I share, but possibly for different reasons.  Latimer scoffed at the townhall format, which produced obviously biased questions — selected by Crowley herself before the event — disguised as impromptu queries from supposedly undecided voters.  The format “is the biggest travesty since the renewal of Mike and Molly,” Latimer writes, but it’s not just the format.

Take a look at the analysis of the debate in the media today.  The conclusions are based not on substance but on performance.  These are game shows.  On substance, Mitt Romney brought his agenda, while Obama left his at home and instead talked about Romney’s wealth and Romney’s business record, as well as Romney’s tax plan.  In a debate on substance, this would be as much a default by Obama as the first debate. Yet the media — with a couple of exceptions — seems to have barely noticed that Obama still isn’t talking about his second term agenda.  Analysts seem much more interested in stage presence and zingers, which is a symptom of what’s wrong in politics — and that’s not limited to the media or to one political party, either.

But back to the moderation.  Latimer calls Crowley the loser of the debate, and media moderators in general:

By far the biggest loser of the debate (after my former boss, George W., that is) was Candy Crowley. She is one of the most seasoned political reporters in Washington, but she came very close to becoming a participant in the debate. At some points she almost lost control, then seemed to interrupt Romney more often than Obama. The president also was given more time to speak overall. Ms. Crowley’s decision to buttress Obama’s declaration that Romney was being dishonest on Libya, however, will go into the Republican Party’s media-bias file for decades to come. Enjoy that moment—you’ll be seeing it again and again for years.

Noah Rothman at Mediaite also argues that Crowley demonstrated why Americans no longer trust the media:

 

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for,” said Obama in the Rose Garden on September 12, after two paragraphs of recounting how Americans responded to the attacks of September 11, 2001. The Obama campaign, knowing that they had advanced a false narrative for weeks and were being called on it, found the word “terror” in his initial response and relied on that speech to show that the president had known the Libya attack was terror all along.

This is wildly offensive to everyone who followed the story closely, but the president seemed to think that he could perhaps get away with it if he had the assistance of complicit journalists who would not fact check that hard. He could not have known the kind of gift he would receive from Candy Crowley — amid a presidential debate, no less.

Following the debate, Crowley appeared on her network where she shrugged and half-heartedly admitted that Romney was correct – that the Obama administration never described the Libya attack as a terrorist act and that they spent the better part of a month trying to convince the nation that what happened in Benghazi was anything but a premeditated assault. But, her instincts in the moment led her to chastise Romney because she felt “he used the wrong word.”

It was a shameful display and an indictment of so much of what is wrong with the media today. Broadly, it is also the reason why so few Americans trust the fourth estate –reporting means never having to say you’re sorry. Sometimes engaging in inaccurate opinion journalism does require a correction and Crowley was wrong and I believe she should make it far clearer than her equivocating mea culpa last night.

Breitbart goes to the transcript to get data in support of Latimer’s conclusion:

In the first presidential debate, Jim Lehrer, no slouch at shilling for the Democratic Party, interrupted Mitt Romney 15 times and Barack Obama only five.

Crowley made Lehrer look like an amateur. She interrupted Obama nine times, (although four of those were when he wouldn’t respect the time limit when discussing assault weapons; he went over his time limit all night long), but when it came to Mitt Romney, she was utterly beyond the pale.

Crowley interrupted Romney 28 times. 28 times. Her desperation to keep Romney from scoring points was so patently obvious that it wasn’t really a surprise when she had her infamous moment: the moment when she interrupted and falsely claimed Romney was incorrect in accusing Obama of refusing to call the Benghazi attack an act of terror.

NRO’s Katrina Trinko finds a curious coincidence so far in the debate series:

According to the CNN debate clock, President Obama spoke at greater length than Mitt Romney during both debates, as did Vice President Biden during his debate with Paul Ryan. In the first debate, Obama spoke for 3 minutes, 14 seconds more than Romney — which means he got 8 percent more talking time than Romney. In last night’s debate, Obama spoke for 4 minutes and 18 seconds longer than Romney, giving him 11 percent more talking time. Obama talked for 52 percent of the time when either man had the floor, while Romney talked for 47 percent.

During the vice presidential debate, the gap wasn’t as wide: Biden spoke for 1 minute, 22 seconds more than Ryan. Still, that gave Biden 3 percent more speaking time than Ryan.

The moderator for next week’s debate on foreign policy is Bob Schieffer of CBS News.  Will he follow the same pattern?  Most will probably suspect so, but Schieffer was reportedly unhappy when the White House stiffed him this weekend on getting someone to discuss the Benghazi terrorist attack, and was one of the people to whom Susan Rice told the since-discredited “spontaneous demonstration” cover story.  We’ll see on Monday whether he intends to hold Obama to at least the same amount of scrutiny as Romney.  That clearly wasn’t the case last night.  Hopefully, though, he will remember what Crowley forgot — moderators aren’t supposed to debate the candidates.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Mitt picked the wrong word?

No, he did not. She just misquoted her “boss” in the clip as that is not what he said in the Rose Garden..

I say that O’s face made it seem like he knew how it would play out.

How did the Dems get a woman that big and fat in their back pocket?

IlikedAUH2O on October 17, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Are you sure Candy is not a man dressed as a woman?

Redford on October 17, 2012 at 3:47 PM

If he was, as accounts by sources in the U.S. intelligence community suggested, negotiating with a terrorist, anti-American group to obtain the return of U.S. weapons provided during the civil war, that would have been a much higher-priority matter. I have been asked by sources not to reveal the specific weapons system that was Washington’s highest priority to buy back, but the details make sense. The fact that the ambassador was not accompanied by a delegation of foreign aid experts to evaluate these alleged projects shows that the reason for the ambassador’s presence in Benghazi is being covered up. This situation transcends State Department jurisdiction and brings in the CIA and higher-level national security officials. The plan would have been in the presidential briefing and it is quite conceivable he would have been called on to approve of it.

Obama and his administration immediately lied to the American people about the cause of the attack, what happened, and who appeared to have done it…”

http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2012/10/17/the-murders-in-libya-the-presidential-debate-and-the-pattern-of-oba

workingclass artist on October 17, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Are you serious?! Let me understand the above. Terrorists need money to BUY GUNS AND ARMS. Most of the time they are only able to buy simple stuff, nothing sophisticated. And Hussein the Idiot somehow thinks that somehow he is able to “reverse” such transactions, especially in case with sophisticated arms? Which, under no circumstances even an elementary school kid would try for it being ABSOLUTELY futile attempt? And the ruse is then used by the same terrorists to lure Stevens to not protected Benghazi (instead of Tripoli embassy)?

Did I understand this clearly? Terrorist used Hussein admin to set up the trap for Stevens.

This takes current admin way below any prior stupidity levels I have assigned to them. Even Crater would not this stupid (I would hope).

Wow, just wow…

riddick on October 17, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Mitt is ready for the foreign policy debate. Thanks Candy.

tarpon on October 17, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Headline: CANDY LEAVES BAD TASTE!

gullxn on October 17, 2012 at 4:10 PM

dogsoldier on October 17, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Thanks, the blurb accompanying the audio said that they weren’t responsible for any damages from heads exploding (my interpretation of their words) but the link is now fixed at Instapundit and I am going to listen to it in a bit.

Cindy Munford on October 17, 2012 at 4:10 PM

The one thing which hasn’t been addressed yet, that I know of: Crowley pointed to a transcript of Obama’s Rose Garden statement. Now, yes, we know the “terror” mention in that was not about Benghazi, but I have another question.

Out of all the things she might have at her fingertips, WHY would she have that on her moderating desk? Did she know it would be needed? Did someone slip it to her? How was she able to put her finger on the exact statement so fast?

Adjoran on October 17, 2012 at 4:12 PM

So where is she today? I would think CNN would have her on in an interview gloating in “her” victory with Obama. Probably did what DWS did, went and crawled under a rock somewhere. She may not surface for a couple of weeks, that’s how toxic she is to the won’s campaign right now.

jake49 on October 17, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Someone needs to tell her she’s not hosting her own show or assisting the participants. It wouldn’t bother me if they allowed each candidate to have a team of two or three aides to back him up, but just so long as they knew whose side they were on and remembered it.

flataffect on October 17, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Crowley was the biggest loser. Never mind about her interruptions and other problems but what really annoyed me was that she was forced to admit Romney was right but then nitpicked by stating that he “used the wrong word.”

She should have simply stated that Romney was right and she was wrong. ‘Nuff said.

Kingfisher on October 17, 2012 at 4:33 PM

The Romney campaign agreed to these moderators. The Republican party always does.

Fair or not, they deserve this.

Daemonocracy on October 17, 2012 at 4:37 PM

I have to apologize to other hotair folks. I defended Crowley before the debate and really believed she’d try to be fair.

I was absolutely and unequivocally wrong. :(

MaggiePoo on October 17, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Candy was supposed to start filming the remake of Willy Wonka (as Veruca Salt) this morning but she ate the set and turned into a grape.

viking01 on October 17, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Small change there, Viking, it was Violet Beauregard who turned into the blueberry.
I can see where you could get Candy mixed up with Veruca Salt though, as she was the spoiled, insulated one who had no concept of the real world.

Sterling Holobyte on October 17, 2012 at 4:56 PM

As of right now on CNN web site – at least 4 articles about “binders”, ZERO on Candy’s backtrack.
Are we SHOCKED, I say?……

dentarthurdent on October 17, 2012 at 4:56 PM

The Romney campaign agreed to these moderators. The Republican party always does.

Fair or not, they deserve this.

Daemonocracy on October 17, 2012 at 4:37 PM

I am wondering if they want liberally biased moderators. Then nobody can say they were “helped” to win the White House, unlike the democrats.

Winning with honor is always better than winning with deception and favors. Something the dems will never realize.

Sterling Holobyte on October 17, 2012 at 5:00 PM

As of right now on CNN web site – at least 4 articles about “binders”, ZERO on Candy’s backtrack.
Are we SHOCKED, I say?……

dentarthurdent on October 17, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Like I have said before, if anyone still thinks the left-wing media isn’t in the tank for Obama, they are brain-dead.

Sterling Holobyte on October 17, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Candy was self-serving during the townhall: she got to choose the questions, she gets to cut off any discussion she doesn’t want to hear and then tries to be a fact checker without the facts backing her up.

She could have tried to play it straight, maybe have a little timer ticking or something, but that would mean she doesn’t get to use her ‘journalistic’ skills. Yet debates and townhalls don’t require anyone with journalistic skills… just get the head of the local Toastmasters to moderate the thing.

Actually, they should do that for all of these things.

And pick questions out of a hat.

Then even Townhall or PJM or Breitbart could run the thing. They may have to because there might be no MFM by the next go-around.

ajacksonian on October 17, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Can’t we just agree that Candy Crowley is a loser period?

bw222 on October 17, 2012 at 5:04 PM

As of right now on CNN web site – at least 4 articles about “binders”, ZERO on Candy’s backtrack.
Are we SHOCKED, I say?……

dentarthurdent on October 17, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Don’t you realize that CNN is the “most trusted name in news?” They say it all the time.

bw222 on October 17, 2012 at 5:06 PM

The Libya fact check was a trap set up to embarrass Romney. Note how smug and comfortable “The ONE” looked from his chair when Romney raised the question of “Acts of terror.” Also, how did Crowley conveniently have the “transcript” that Obama instantly asked her to refer to.

There are also reports that FLOTUS led the spontaneous cheering that broke out in the studio audience when Romney was stifled by Crowley.

I wondered what trap they were going to lay for Romney.

This one almost worked. If it wasn’t so confusing to the television audience, it would have.

Caveat emptor!

Stepan on October 17, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Winning with honor is always better than winning with deception and favors. Something the dems will never realize.

Sterling Holobyte on October 17, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Very true – but unfortunately for us, the Dems keep winning without honor – and it doesn’t bother them, and they continue to ruin our lives as a result.
WRT politics, at some point, honor or not, the right side needs to win or we are all ruined.

dentarthurdent on October 17, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Don’t you realize that CNN is the “most trusted name in news?” They say it all the time.

bw222 on October 17, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Why, of course////
That’s why I’m shocked, shocked I say, that they aren’t mentioning Candy’s backtrack.

dentarthurdent on October 17, 2012 at 5:08 PM

The Romney campaign agreed to these moderators. The Republican party always does.

Fair or not, they deserve this.

Daemonocracy on October 17, 2012 at 4:37 PM

In addition, the debate was held just a few miles from one of the most liberal cities in the country. If you are going to have a town hall debate, pick a purple state like Ohio.

bw222 on October 17, 2012 at 5:13 PM

All Crowley did here was point out that Obama did in fact say ‘act of terror’.
Funny how much objection there is to this – but understandable.
It made Romney look small. One of many similar moments.
But he’s the one who was asking this rambling confused question – and for some odd reason unaware of what Obama did in fact say in the Rose Garden?
Even if he wanted to spin it that he was being specific, Romney was going with he didn’t say it all.
Silly to blame Crowley.
(But y’all loved Jim Leher…right? Ha.)

verbaluce on October 17, 2012 at 5:14 PM

wolfie defending the crap out of candy…

not good…this will come back to haunt her…

cmsinaz on October 17, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Crowley just proved what we already knew about her – she fully lived up to her reputation as a leftist hack – and met all of our expectations.

Pork-Chop on October 17, 2012 at 5:19 PM

So what’s the beef. She did the job she was hired to do. Her only mistake was messing up on the Benghazi thing,maybe. I am going to be cynical here and say they knew it was coming and worked out the deal. Obama made his statement Romney obviously to stunned for words but managed to call him on it. Then Crowley backed it up and Michelle started clapping to get the crowd going.

It seemed on cue. Crowley fact checked and Michelle clapped. The only time that happened. The only problem was the crowd in the room didn’t pick it up. The other clapping was from the adjoining room.

These are professionals and this stuff doesn’t happen by accident.

BullShooterAsInElk on October 17, 2012 at 5:22 PM

But, her instincts in the moment led her to chastise Romney because she felt “he used the wrong word.”

What the eff? What ‘word’ is she referring to? Maybe if she hadn’t changed the rules at the last minute to inject herself into the debate, we’d have see the Won stumble, mumble and bumble his way through the evening. As it was, he resorted to memorized stump speechifing his way through.

Kissmygrits on October 17, 2012 at 5:24 PM

The ‘binders’ Mitt was referring to contain resumes. If Obysmal had ever worked in the business world he would have known.

Kissmygrits on October 17, 2012 at 5:27 PM

…I think Mrs. John Candy can cut her hair and do a remake of Uncle Buck!
(I know that’s not nice…but neither was she!)

KOOLAID2 on October 17, 2012 at 1:28 PM

I take it you don’t like the aging, overweight hooker look?

bw222 on October 17, 2012 at 5:29 PM

I’d be curious to know…

Hugh Hewitt talks to the Romney campaign; he’s said so on the show. Once that incompetent fool’s campaign said no FNC folks as moderators, I’d be very curious to know whether Romney folks asked Hewitt — who’s as close to fair and objective as we can get?

HH has that Crowley person on his show every week, saying what a good journalist she is; I’d be curious to know if he told the Romney people she’s someone they could live with…he was quick to defend her in his post last evening, saying the “mistake” was “unintentional.” So, anyway, I’d be really curious to know if he said anything to the Romney people about having Crowley as a moderator.

EastofEden on October 17, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Verbaldouchebaggery…you carry the water well grasshopper. Say did you show your face at today’s Gallup thread?

/

CW on October 17, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Romney should have said at the interuption, “Excuse me Candy, this debate is between myself and the President, you fat cow.” Okay, he should probably leave off the fat cow part.

RonRon on October 17, 2012 at 5:49 PM

70,000,000 people saw Cumbley state BO said it was a terror attack, now she back tracks on CNN where, what 50,000 see. Why is anyone from CNN, the least watch cable news a moderator? There is a reason CNN is always scraping the bottom in viewers, they scrape the bottom for employees, i.e Crumbley

Wade on October 17, 2012 at 5:56 PM

I take it you don’t like the aging, overweight hooker look?

bw222 on October 17, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Can you believe she looked in the mirror, prior to going to the debate, and thought this is the best I can look in front of 70 million viewers?

Wade on October 17, 2012 at 5:58 PM

I am going to listen to it in a bit.

Cindy Munford on October 17, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Yeah, you will get angry.

dogsoldier on October 17, 2012 at 6:01 PM

I take it you don’t like the aging, overweight CHEAP hooker look?

bw222 on October 17, 2012 at 5:29 PM

FIFY

riddick on October 17, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Winning with honor is always better than winning with deception and favors. Something the dems will never realize.

Sterling Holobyte on October 17, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Sure, winning with honor is always better. Let’s not make the battle unnecessarily hard by willingly signing on to take on their candidate and a biased moderator in a roomful of left-leaning ‘undecideds’, asking cherry-picked liberal-favoring questions.

Win with honor, fine – but let’s f-ing try our best to *win*, shall we?

Midas on October 17, 2012 at 6:32 PM

I am going to listen to it in a bit.

Cindy Munford on October 17, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Yeah, you will get angry.

dogsoldier on October 17, 2012 at 6:01 PM

I could not take more than the first time the PoleBender stopped Romney from making a point, which was extremely predictable going into the debate. Read all the tweets after that, was more informative that way.

riddick on October 17, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Can you believe she looked in the mirror, prior to going to the debate, and thought this is the best I can look in front of 70 million viewers?

Wade on October 17, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Um, I think that was the best she could look.

talkingpoints on October 17, 2012 at 6:56 PM

If Romney wins, he will have the upper hand on the format for the next debates. He should absolutely insist that no media members participate, PERIOD.

Have a respected moderator like Jonathan Turley or Eugene Volokh or a sitting state court judge as a timekeeper only. No questions, no facilitating, only moving to the next area agreed upon for discussion when one time segment is done.

Time should be kept on a double countdown clock like used in chess tournaments. When one finishes speaking, his clock is stopped and the opponent’s begins counting down. When you are over time for each segment, your microphone goes OFF and you speak no more until the next segment.

Adjoran on October 17, 2012 at 7:12 PM

The answer to the opening question is “Yes.” The caveat is that she was a loser before the debate. [And yes, I've watched her show, so I'm not just bashing her. She's a BHO Kool-aid Konsumer like most of them].

EdmundBurke247 on October 17, 2012 at 8:11 PM

If Romney wins, he will have the upper hand on the format for the next debates. He should absolutely insist that no media members participate, PERIOD. …

Adjoran on October 17, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Foolish person, the Liberal-Media narrator and format were predetermined before the debate series began. It’s going to be FOUR debates where the moderator is blatantly propping up the corpse of the Obama Presidency.

rayra on October 17, 2012 at 8:33 PM

‘Wrrknight at Bernie’s’

rayra on October 17, 2012 at 8:33 PM

Here Adjoran (and others), the totally biased moderation plan was identified over two months ago
http://www.mediaite.com/online/limbaugh-slams-2012-debate-moderators-as-far-left-wing-liberal-democrats/

rayra on October 17, 2012 at 8:35 PM

Croweley certainly met my expectations. Never once did think she would be impartial.

Cody1991 on October 17, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Me neither. I was betting 10:1 that if she saw Obama needing help, she’d try to throw the debate.

She’s no jounalist. She’s a shill with a journalism degree.

petefrt on October 17, 2012 at 8:37 PM

I have to apologize to other hotair folks. I defended Crowley before the debate and really believed she’d try to be fair.

I was absolutely and unequivocally wrong. :(

MaggiePoo on October 17, 2012 at 4:54 PM

That’s just f’n tragically ridiculous, given how utterly slanderous she was towards Romney during the GOP Primary debates. She said horribly illiberal things about him.
And it demonstrates you’ve never watched / listened her grossly biased phrasings in all the years previous.

rayra on October 17, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Croweley made a fool out of herself saving her boy Barry BAMSTAHHHHHHH!!!!! YOU DA MANNNNNNNNNNN BAMMMMMMMY BABYYYY!!! LOVE YA BARRY OL BUDDY OL PALLLLLLL!!!!!! YAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Co on 1:40 PM

cableguy615 on October 17, 2012 at 9:12 PM

If Romney wins, he will have the upper hand on the format for the next debates. He should absolutely insist that no media members participate, PERIOD.

Have a respected moderator like Jonathan Turley or Eugene Volokh or a sitting state court judge as a timekeeper only. No questions, no facilitating, only moving to the next area agreed upon for discussion when one time segment is done.

Time should be kept on a double countdown clock like used in chess tournaments. When one finishes speaking, his clock is stopped and the opponent’s begins counting down. When you are over time for each segment, your microphone goes OFF and you speak no more until the next segment.

Adjoran on October 17, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Have no idea why GOP has agreed to all the liberal demands in decades past. This has to stop.

And another piece of legislation that simply MUST be enacted is AVS check for ALL donation via plastic. I am tired of seeing our tax money being used to support liberal elections. Election after election.

riddick on October 17, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Have a respected moderator like Jonathan Turley or Eugene Volokh or a sitting state court judge as a timekeeper only. No questions, no facilitating, only moving to the next area agreed upon for discussion when one time segment is done.

Time should be kept on a double countdown clock like used in chess tournaments. When one finishes speaking, his clock is stopped and the opponent’s begins counting down. When you are over time for each segment, your microphone goes OFF and you speak no more until the next segment.

Adjoran on October 17, 2012 at 7:12 PM

I also like the idea, proposed above, that ALL questions, from both sides of political spectrum, are thrown in the hat, same as lottery picks, and moderator simply picks one question from the pool. Makes it random and even. And even with liberal moderators such as BadCandy throws them off their one-sided game.

As well as makes sure their liberal candidate doesn’t get to prepare for the questions well in advance.

riddick on October 17, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Was Candy Crowley the loser of the debate?

Yes. A big, FAT loser.

OneVision on October 17, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Wasn’t Candy in the Lincoln-Douglas-Crowley debate too?

Pretty sure she was at Gettysburg. She was the broad who added a few words after Lincoln spoke, so the crowd wouldn’t be disappointed

Her self insertion into historical moment, by plan or not, gives her a sorry place in history

On the other hand she helped Romney

They always say it aint over until the fat lady sings

entagor on October 17, 2012 at 10:54 PM

Mind you I’m not a mathlete, so help me out here:

Debate goes for 90 minutes and Crowley interrupts Romney 28 times, roughly every 3 minutes during the entire debate. But Romney only spoke for an estimated 47% of the time, lets say approximately 40 minutes.

Since Crowley obviously did not interrupt Romney while Obama was speaking, that means she stopped Romney in the middle of a sentence 28 times in 40 minutes…about once every 90 seconds, vs almost 6 minutes between each of her 9 interruptions of Obama??

Sacramento on October 17, 2012 at 11:54 PM

Can you believe she looked in the mirror, prior to going to the debate, and thought this is the best I can look in front of 70 million viewers?

Wade on October 17, 2012 at 5:58 PM

She was not there for 70 million people, she was there for Hussein, and she looked OK to Hussein’s other mommy, Valerie Jarret.

burrata on October 18, 2012 at 12:43 AM

I suggest she be known as Snickers Crowley and not Candy.

profitsbeard on October 18, 2012 at 1:27 AM

Fact check or fat check?

Sherman1864 on October 18, 2012 at 2:06 AM

I saw that Maddow played exactly the portion of the debate which suggests that Mitt walked right into a one way dead end street. They aren’t even bothering with Candy’s walk back.

That incident was as orchestrated and contrived as the spontaneous “binder” stories today. Gotta play identity politics and divide and conquer the sheepie.

Somebody is playing the media like a six note harmonica.

IlikedAUH2O on October 18, 2012 at 8:08 AM

The Romney campaign agreed to these moderators. The Republican party always does.

Fair or not, they deserve this.

Daemonocracy on October 17, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Isn’t it the “bipartisan” debate commission that agrees to the formats and moderators and the campaign more less just have to accept it?

Animal60 on October 18, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Lefties think that if they are not struck by lightening, they win and are home free.

Actually, what happens is an erosion of support and acceptance over a very broad range of people important to the person in question.

Then comes a precipitating issue which they blame for their troubles: so unfair. It was like Sally Quinn taking Mass when she shouldn’t have. Your enemies wait for a plausible pretext and break you.

Finally it is very hard to recoup when you lose trust as she has.

Denver Bob on October 18, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3