bingo. I didn't know that but what you are saying makes sense. These people are smart in an evil sneaky sort of way. It was a setup but no direct collusion was necessary. They 'laundered" the setup via dry run a few days earlier. Candy checked it out herself. She didn't defend obama on command. She did it based on ego because she had checked out axlerod's assertion herself and was probably surprised that obama did in fact say "act of terror".
Note that Obama didn't call them terrorists. He believed a mob was ticked off about a movie and committed an act of terror. Obama's words change nothing. mitt fell for a liberal wordsmithing distraction. The debate has never been whether the act was an "act of terror". It was whether it was planned and whether it was carried out by a terrorist organization. Distraction game.
After checking into the transcript between Axelord and Can-D, I have a question about the timeline. The interview took place on September 28 (I believe), and was aired on September 30. Now granted, I DO believe Axelrod was setting this up, but that was over two and a half weeks earlier, not just a couple of days. The fact that she had THAT transcript vs. all the other ones says she wanted to believe Axelrod’s excuse (essentially a lie) even though she had to know that is NOT what obama’s words implied.
The fact that she knew Axelrod’s line of reasoning before the debate and still THEN jumped in at a crtical point where Romney had obama beaten on the Benghazi question.....says Can-D was NOT impartial.