There were so many blatant signs of Obama-favored bias displayed by CNN political correspondent Candy Crowley that one scarcely knows where to begin. Now that the second presidential debate is history – being legitimately called the liveliest presidential debate in history – people are having time to look past the drama and way past the performances to see what actually happened that caused such a difference between Romney’s huge win in the first debate and his extremely narrow win in the second.

The answer is very clear: Candy Crowley and her bias for the president. For starters, Candy Crowley went beyond the job of the moderator and gave tremendous support to those who have alleged for a long time that high-profile television people should not be moderating these all-important events. The negative trend towards these television-famed analysts is growing in this political season with the poor performance by Jim Lehrer at the first debate – and now the much worse performance of Candy Crowley at the second. She was even more unfairly influential than Martha Raddatz was in the vice presidential debate when she passively watched Vice President Joe Biden do the constant interruptions during a debate in which vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan had few options to complete a thought without Biden acting out unprofessionally and very un-vice presidentially interrupting the process.

On Tuesday night during the second presidential debate, Crowley was supposed to be the moderator – not a participant! She took it upon herself to participate in the debate with President Obama and Mitt Romney. In post-analysis of the debate, it is obvious that Crowley inserted her comments and directives to stop numerous comments which blatantly assisted President Obama. She also found it necessary to tell Mitt Romney to “sit down” at one point, yet never told the “standing president” to do the same when Romney had the floor.

Most blatantly, she interjected the untruth regarding Mitt Romney’s absolutely-accurate claim near the end of the debate that President Obama did not, in fact, tell the American people that the attack at the Libyan consulate on September 11 was a terrorist attack on the day after the attack when he spoke in the Rose Garden. Romney was correct in criticizing Obama for jumping right back on the campaign trail during a blatant terrorist attack which Obama and his administration refused to admit for weeks after Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were murdered. Candy Crawley should have let Mitt Romney have his say instead of blatantly stopping a key-Mitt Romney moment which stresses how Obama is all about campaigning and not about doing the president’s dignified job in a moment of national tragedy. It’s a point that should have been justly allowed to have been made.

The next day, it was maddening to hear Crowley excusing her misspeak and grotesque mis-performance on “The View” by saying she was just trying to move the debate along like a mother moderating between two arguing children. Proof that she was assisting Obama when she made her misspeak regarding Libya is that President Obama, behind Romney, yelled, “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?” The moderator and one participant – Obama – were partners. Romney, throughout the debate, was the “man out.” This debate was not a team event as much as Crowley’s performance made portions of the debate appear to be a teaming of Crowley and Obama against Romney.

There is not one time in the debate where Crowley made such a move during one of Obama’s shining moments. Not one. In review of the debate, one can clearly see the bias displayed within Crowley’s pathetic performance. She interrupted Mitt Romney 28 times while stopping the president’s thoughts only 9 times. It is no wonder that Obama ended up with more speaking time than Romney was allowed by her. Every minute obviously counts in a debate like this. The opportunity to be heard just as fluidly as the opponent is also essential. Both speakers went beyond the two minute mark, and there is no reason other than preferential treatment for Crowley to not issue evenly-handed interruptions.

During the second debate, Obama got a big boost via Candy Crowley. And this assistance is totally unfair because people watch these debates and are extremely influenced by them. Yes, Crowley walked-back her comment after the debate and tried to explain, but that doesn’t make anything about her misspeak excusable. Many will not hear the walk-back and, thereby, the harm she has caused Romney is done. Via no apology, this doesn’t seem to bother her at all.

Prior to the debate, through multiple political comments Crowley has made regarding this election, specifically opinions she has expressed regarding vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, she should not have been given the honor of running this high-profile debate. She was ultimately more biased in her performance on Tuesday night than initially feared she would be by many. She has totally lost her credibility for such a position again.

Romney was given a huge disservice by being subjected to an obviously “left”-leaning moderator just as Ryan was disserved by Raddatz in the vice presidential debate when she refused to control the interruptions and antics of Joe Biden – but the harm was on a smaller scale from Raddatz. Bipartisan or non-political moderators of presidential debates must be selected in years to come in order for the American people to get an even-handed evaluation of the two candidates. Blatant “leftists” in the media such as Candy Crowley must not be allowed to control the debates as they control the headlines from day to day.

About Scott Paulson

Scott Paulson writes political commentary for Examiner.com and teaches English at a community college in the Chicago area. The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of CBS Local.