Not buying.
I like James Taranto, but in order to buy this theory you have to disregard the entire context of the rest of the debate. Candy cut Romney off on Fast and Furious, and that answer was pertinent to the question. She selected questions which generally were hostile to Romney, and the one questioner potentially detrimental to 0bama was actually asking a question that was a perfect setup for the pResident to say what he wanted to do in a second term. Though that questioner appeared hostile (and probably was) the inquiry itself was a "soft" question. That 0bama did not hit it out of the park is a testament to the fact that he has no plan for the next four years except more anti-Constitutional executive orders, more debt, more welfare, more food stamps, more disability, more economic cronyism and of course more golf and more vacations for Mooch and her daughters.
It also ignores the fact that she repeatedly cut Romney off, and granted 0bama more time; now covered with a pathetically lame excuse that 0bama "talks more slowly."
I am truly amazed at the circling of the wagons around the collaborationist press here, even by columnists and hard news people who are supposed to be objective or conservative. In its totality, her debate performance was a clear, shocking violation of professional conduct and the rules of the CPD.
Stop with the excuses.
BINGO! (See # 48...)