Boston Herald: Too Much Candy!

No sweet tooth at the Boston Herald today.

Page One (via the Newseum’s Today’s Front Pages):

And that’s just for starters. Next up, Joe Battenfeld’s column:

Romney sours after Candy butts in

Mitt Romney got lost in Candy-land and ended up losing a chance to put away President Obama.

Moderator Candy Crowley’s unusual backing up of Obama’s claim that he called the attacks in Libya an “act of terror” effectively stopped Mitt’s momentum and allowed the president to turn what should have been a bad moment into a victory.

And Crowley’s admonishment of Romney to “go to the transcript” of Obama’s Rose Garden remarks on Libya didn’t help.

Battenfeld goes on to say that “Obama actually did not call the Benghazi attacks ‘an act of terror’ but made a general statement about ‘no acts of terror’ shaking the nation’s resolve.”

Not to get technical about it.

Then there’s Howie Carr’s drive-by:

Obama running on fumes

They don’t like each other. They really don’t like each other, do they? No knockout blows. Barack Obama was better than in Denver, but he’s still got this very big problem, namely, his record.

It doesn’t matter how many extra minutes moderator Candy Crowley gave Obama (somewhere between three and five, depending on which network you were listening to), he’s still stuck with his dismal economy.

“Does that mean you’re not hurting?” Obama told one New Yorker after rattling off a few bogus sunshine-y stats. “Absolutely not. A lot of us are.”

It was Obama who was hurting, though, when the topic of Libya came up, at least until Crowley rescued him, Carr says:

Obama had no answers, because there aren’t many. But then Romney, with a chance for a walk-off home run, got tripped up on what Obama said in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12. OK, Obama didn’t precisely say Benghazi was a terrorist attack, but he had thrown in a CYA reference to “no act of terror.”

Then Candy couldn’t help herself and jumped in on the president’s side by misrepresenting what he’d said, in a positive way.

Two-on-one is moonbat fun.

If you say so, Howie.

Then, just for the heck of it, the Herald assigned a reporter to blow the lid off Candyscam.

Candy Crowley edges into fact-checker role

CNN’s Candy Crowley ventured into dangerous territory last night, briefly playing the role of live fact-checker while moderating the feisty presidential title card.

“Unless a moderator is going to offer live fact-checking of both candidates, she should steer clear of that,” said Peter Ubertaccio of Stonehill College. “Moderating a debate shouldn’t be confused with analyzing what the candidate is saying.”

Okay, then.

And how did crosstown rival Boston Globe match all the Herald’s Candy dish.

It didn’t. Here’s the only mention of Crowley (and not even by name) the hardreading staff could find:

Romney’s supporters were happy . . . though they criticized the debate moderator for not giving their candidate as much time to respond to questions as Obama got.

“I thought the moderator was a little biased, but what are you going to do,” said Sarah Jasper, 18, a political science major wearing a Romney sticker who said she was “definitely happy with what I heard from Romney” at the debate.

Clearly, Sarah will never work at the Boston Herald. Way too reasonable.

 

8 Responses to Boston Herald: Too Much Candy!

  1. Crowley didn’t say go to the transcript, Obama did.

  2. […] The feisty local tabloid is not at all pleased with the moderator of last night’s presidential debate, CNN’s Candy Crowley.  And it’s written all over their front page. Details at IGTLTDT. […]

  3. It’s the rule – if your guy won, talk about your guy. If your guy lost – talk about the moderator!

  4. “Obama actually did not call the Benghazi attacks ‘an act of terror’ but made a general statement about ‘no acts of terror’ shaking the nation’s resolve.” – Indeed, but he said that in the clear context of the Benghazi attacks. To say he was not talking about Benghazi there is not telling it straight.

    BTW, in a Beat The Press thread about balance on the panel, I have suggested Battenfeld might be a good conservative voice. What do you think?

  5. Carly says:

    Really – Candy Land! Ms. Crowley said she wasn’t ‘fact checking.’ As a matter of fact, CBN news wrote that she said she her comment was “simply an attempt to move the conversation forward, and suggested that criticism of her performance was inevitable.” http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57534438/conservatives-assail-debate-moderator-candy-crowley/ On a talk show this morning she said, “It didn’t come to me as I’m going to fact check that. It came to me as let’s get passed this? To me I was really trying to move the conversation along? This is a semantic thing,” “People are going to look at this through the prism they look at this through,” Crowley said. “I get that.” By the way, in most reports she is referred to as Candy. Interesting that Mitt Romney is Romney.

  6. Carly says:

    Note to self. When a bit frustrated remember to edit before hitting the reply button. Correction CBS news wrote that she said her comment was “simply an attempt to move the conversation forward, and suggested that criticism of her performance was inevitable.”

Leave a Reply to It’s Good To Live In A Two-Daily Town (Boston Herald: Too Much Candy!) | Campaign Outsider Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: