If she does an Apology Tour, would that satisfy?
Romney managed to tie despite a hostile moderator, a hostile crowd and hostile questions loaded towards Obama every single time.
He was playing the Patriots in Gillette stadium. There was the equivalent of an extra man on the field. He did well to keep his losses to a minimum.
To balance this out the next debate would have to be held at Fox and Friends with Glenn Beck as the moderator. Even he would probably refrain from actually lying about the candidates during the debate.
And I did. It was good. 
Mostly, we would have to hope he didn’t bite anybody. Those shots can be quite painful, I hear.
And the crowd was “hostile”? Any idea how that came about? Are you suggesting some skulduggery was afoot, or merely insinuating?
Yep. Romney tried to Gish-Gallop into a tunnel he’d just painted and crashed headlong into the rock wall because this time he got called on his bullshit.
And never have we seen a more perfect match between poster name and post content.
Because saying something is “an act of terror” is SO much different than saying it was a “terrorist attack”?
Come on, guys. You’re just sore losers. I freely admitted that Obama sucked major ass in Round 1. Romney sucked nearly as bad in Round 2.
I am surprised that a bigger stink isnt being made about this. Mitt is so far out if touch.
Did anyone else see the audience give Candy Crowley the clap?
Don’t ask me; I’m still trying to clean the Coke off my TV after he said “I came through small business.” What, is he counting his first job out of college at Boston Consulting Group as “small business” compared to Bain? 
:rolleyes:
The term “small business” is one of marvelous flexibility. Like “virgin”.
Obama was leaps and bounds better last night than in the 1st debate, which certainly helps him. Romney was good, but not great. I think Romney is better at explaining strategy and backing it up with numbers and statistics. Obama, on the other hand, was better during the direct confrontations. He fended off Romney’s attacks pretty well (sometimes with moderator help).
One person was certainly deep in the weeds during this debate, and that was the moderator. She was about as bad as you can be, at point not even knowing how the debate was supposed to be structured.
Crowley shouldn’t have said anything to support Obama over Libya as she did. Likewise, she shouldn’t have said anything to support Romney either, which she did immediately after, a fact that people are already conveniently forgetting. Otherwise, she ran the debate as good as could be expected, keeping it pretty much on track, while allowing the occasional overstepping of the time limit or various interruptions. As for loaded questions, I really don’t want to go back and see exactly what the questions are, so could you give me some examples of how they were “loaded.”
She was probably afraid of the hostile crowd. I mean, they were just seething with rage.
Is this written in the rules of the debate somewhere?
No matter how many times you repeat this, it will not become true.
You are wrong. Full stop. Incorrect.
Crowley corrected Romney, because she was THERE during Obama’s talk in the rose garden, and heard him give a speech about the previous day’s attack in Libya, about which he said:
“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation”
You are 100%, totally, completely wrong, and your talking points will only impress others like yourself.
She did not “support” Obama over Libya. She called out Romney when he did not tell the truth about what Obama said the next day. She was there. She heard Obama’s words. It’s a sad day when a moderator is not allowed to tell the audience when someone is lying, when she has directly knowledge about the actual truth.
I think even Candy knew right away that she shouldn’t have said anything, which is why she made a token effort to say that Romney was also right (how could both be right?), but the damage had been done.
What Obama said on 9/12 and how he meant it is obviously open to interpretations, so the moderator should have let the candidates debate the point rather than interject with her own interpretation.
I’d guess you believe moderators should step in to correct factual errors, instead of letting the candidates do that? Fair enough. The point was that what she did wasn’t evidence of bias to either candidate, since she defended both.
I think she was just trying to cover up her slip. She’s not supposed to be openly rooting for one candidate, but she did. Her comment somewhat in favor of Romney was like blaming an unexpected fart on the dog. She knew she screwed up and tried to balance things out but it was too late.
Unbelievably unprofessional.