Did you notice the timer next to Romney's head in the 2nd debate? Obama had one two but it drifts off s...?

There were only a few dozen people that caught that "subtlety" of camera angles.

Not just the time "up" but a few bloggers said it was "visually annoying". Nixon

lost his debates because the camera "angle" made him look like he had a

5 o'clock shadow and viewers thought it made him look "sinister" ( nuff said

about that ).

Answer: These days the tech and visual aids field is phenomenal and it's feasible

that there was some orchestrated movement to highlight this clock. I know there's

a from by frame analysis going on, to see how often when Romney was talking,

Obama was framed in the background and when Obama was talking, he was

given a close up. Hard to make the accusation stick, but we learned long ago,

so MANY people want to protect Obama, they stoop to all kinds of cheap tricks.

Do not you consider that if Romney was once doing nothing greater than spewing lies for the duration of the debate Obama would have known as him on it? Do you rather believe that the all-powerful one would simply let that slide? Your candidate Mr. Obama had nothing to say seeing that you can't refute the reality. His policies are on the verge of bankrupting this nation. It has to finish now. So go get on your Obama mobilephone and call some fool who believes the same as you, that you may speak at the same time ready in line to your Obama bucks.

Actually Obama got 3 and a half minutes more time than did Romney according to the news reports. I think the times Candy cut off Romney when he was about to score debates points is the most damning evidence.

Yes it does, and the subtlety has to be mentioned of these people. Even when Obama mentioned that he said terrorists, and Candy confirmed him, shows their bias as well as the sneaky antics of this administration. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing. I believe they wanted to trap Romney and succeeded in doing so. You have to get up pretty early in the morning to keep up with these criminals.

This is what Obama actually said outside the White house:

Obama said during the speech that “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation” — but at no point was it clear that he was using that term to describe the attack in Benghazi. He’d also spent the previous two paragraphs discussing the 9/11 attacks and the aftermath. “Acts of terror” could have just as easily been a reference to that. Or maybe it wasn’t a direct reference to anything, just a generic, reassuring line he’d added into a speech which did take place, after all, the day after the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

From the White House, here is what Obama said:

…Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi…

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

Candy re-enforced this ploy, probably unconsciously, yet she still did.

I believe the press in the USA will go to ANY length to protect this criminal, and make sure he wins a second term. If he does, it will be to the detriment of the modern world.

I watched on PBS. (Fewer talking heads telling us what we are supposed to be thinking as we are being indoctrinated.)

I noticed the timers, but saw what I expected to see.

Obama lying and given more time. Obama interrupting, etc.

Poor control by the moderator.

Selection of questions as the moderator saw fit.

Okay, so it was biased.

Romney still hasn't given details when required and Obama? - Just more of the same crap as he pushed on us over the last 4 years.

Don't like the last 4 years?

Time for a change.

I don't like Romney but he gets my vote by default.

Hey he's the messiah and work miracles, why blame CNN. Oops time to go. It's Noon so the liberals are starting to crawl out of bed

Congratulations! You've just been hired as a news analyst for Fox "News"!

EDIT

Freddie Vincent--Obama had more time during the Vice Presidential Debate?

Obama had one too (not two).

Why were you watching CNN if you believe they have a bias? Watch FOX then for the bias in the other direction. Or, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, CSPAN. Lots of choices.

YES AND IF YOU'VE WATCHED ALL 3 DEBATES,OBAMA HAS HAD MORE TIME IN EACH DEBATE!

No and No. If you thought CNN would be too biased, why didn't you watch it on Fox, CBS, NBC, or ABC?