It was all "Mitch Wromley" (h/t Letterman and Crowley) could do to refrain from referring to President Obama as "You there, boy."
Jeebus what an arrogant prick. I'm sure that's why other arrogant pricks love him so.
Meanwhile, Obama seemed to have recovered somewhat from whatever it was that threw him off his game in the first "debate" with Willard.
(I heard Tavis Smiley and Cornell West speculating on the radio that it was likely "something personal" that we will "never know." The likeliest scenario is a domestic squabble, but I dunno.)
At any rate, Obama's performance was rated more than adequate by the critics, so that's all that was necessary.
Someone who should know better (but since he's an entertainer, we're prepared to imagine he doesn't) claimed that Crowley was -- somehow -- a dyed in the wool Obama Supporter, what's the word, "Obamabot?" Surely anybody who has seen Crowley's performances in the past would think just the opposite of her, but I will say, she was fine last night, not favoring either of the candidates and pressing on generally substantive issues, trying to get them both to at least address the questions being asked by the heavily washed and perfumed masses who were allowed in.
The fact that neither candidate chose to actually answer the questions they were posed is telling.
No answer on jobs, no answer on gas prices, no answer on much of anything, let alone a straightforward answer on pay equity for women.
"Binders full of women" is nearly the sole take-away.
That tells us all we need to know about the priorities of the Palace and its handmaidens.