Mitt Romney has seen his lead over President Obama increase slightly in a new national poll of likely voters. The Gallup Daily Tracking poll gives Romney a six point advantage over Mr. Obama, with 51 percent of respondents saying they'd vote for Romney and 45 percent backing the president.
This is the third day Romney has seen a slight increase in his lead in the poll, which surveyed 2,700 likely voters and has a 2-point margin of error. The survey was taken before last night's presidential debate.
remember when they swore a few weeks back that the race was over and barack had won.
judith isn't some 1 i would rush to highlight. she had some very bad reports that the bush administration loved because it made it appear that the war with iraq was necessary. the administration used her for stenography.
she gladly engaged in that.
surprisingly, judith started out rather left in life. (and started out at the magazine 'the progressive.') but she was too cozy to her sources.
some people call her a liar.
as c.i. has pointed out, miller didn't lie. she did bad reporting but she wasn't lying. she honestly believed what she was being told.
so she's a dupe.
she's no longer with 'the new york times.' she's now with the hoover institute and fox news.
all of that is my way of explaining i would not normally highlight her.
i wouldn't read her, to be honest, so there would be no point in highlighting her.
however, i do know douglas e. schoen. and he co-wrote the article. a friend sent me the article and reminded me about douglas and said, 'you should consider highlighting it.'
i did and will. this is from judith miller and douglas e. schoen's 'crowly's intervention as moderator-in-chief swung the debate in obama's favor:'
Was Obama’s use of the term “acts of terror” referring to 9/11 and the other militant Islamic attacks that have plagued America for so long? Or was he referring to the murders in Benghazi as "acts of terror?" Fair-minded readers may disagree. Even CNN’s own John King said that Obama’s statement struck him as a “generic” comment about terror, and not specifically a decision to label the Libya attack a terrorist act.
But Crowley, who covers politics, incidentally, not foreign policy or national security, had no doubt. The nanny moderator was sure that the president had called the Benghazi murders "acts of terror" -- journalism’s equivalent of a replacement referee’s worst call.
Did Crowley understand that her intervention 70 minutes into a 90 minute debate was not only possibly inaccurate but also partisan in that it helped Obama? In a breathless interview with CNN about what can most charitably be called her gaffe, she claimed to have been even-handed, though she tried walking back her intervention by saying, after the damage was done, that Romney had been right “in the main.” But, she added, she had not only told Romney that he was wrong about “act of terror,” she then told him that he was right in having claimed that “it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out.”
In other words, it took the president 14 days to say that Benghazi was, well, an act of terror and not the result of a spontaneous riot over a videotape. At this point the audience might understandably have been thoroughly confused. But the president’s supporters got the message: they clapped and cheered after Obama asked her to “say that a little louder.”
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'