Candy Crowley's fact check was just enough to pin prick the racism that is at the heart of Romney's debate tactics. Had she not intervened ... the debate, like the first one, would have been a he said, he said situation where many Americans reflexively, like they do on juries and in the media and in everyday life, would believe the white guy. It would have been irrelevent that Romney lied and the President did not. It would not have mattered if the Rose Garden statement on Benghazi on Septemebr 12 was on TV and YouTube. The damage would have been done. Romney would have prevailed in the debate. Those of us saying he had lied would have just been dismissed as sore losers. The President would have lost the Benghazi round and for many all the lies Romeny told throughout the debate would also stand. Now that a white woman live and in real time called into question Romney's truthtelling while validating the President, the President's words, though delivered by a black man, had a chance to be heard and viewed as credible despite Romeny presenting an alternative reality.
For the 30 percent plus of adult voters, older and more male ones, who will never vote for an African American as President, it was irrelevent what Candy did. And certainly the Romney campaign, Fox, and talk radio are reassuring them that Romney was treated unfairly and Candy talked "out of turn" and violated the rules. But for the 4-6 percent of voters who may not have made up their mind, and for some Obama voters who were giving Romney a second look for his Alpha performance in the first debate, Candy forced these folks to consider their assumptions of whom they believe when they watch a debate on TV. Without Candy some of those folks would have bought into Romney's lies, assertions and browbeating because he is the white guy.