The Benghazi question during Tuesday's presidential debate not only spurred a flair-up between Romney, Obama and Candy Crowley, but it may also create quite a stir in the liberal MSM.

The essential point Mitt Romney was trying to make before Candy Crowley decided to "organically" intervene, was why, if President Obama did in fact call Benghazi a terrorist attack the morning after the attack, did he and his administration surrogates for the next two weeks continue to say that the attack was "in fact" a result of a spontaneous demonstration and Internet movie trailer?

To boil it down, in spite of both Crowley's and Obama's attempts to obfuscate the facts and move on, Romney's question of what did President Obama know about the Benghazi attack and when did he know it has put the liberal MSM in quite a quandary.   

Up until now, the liberal MSM has decided not to ask Benghazi questions with any real journalistic seriousness in an obvious effort to protect the president. But that strategy was undercut during the debate when Candy Crowley decided to push the partisan envelope and switch from being moderator to Obama's debate partner offering to help the president when he was on the ropes with what she assumed were the facts.  As it turns out, both Crowley and Obama were wrong.

As a result, the liberal MSM now has to deal with about 70 million people whose curiosity must have been sparked by what transpired during the Benghazi debate question and also Crowley's subsequent admission after the debate that she was wrong and Mitt Romney was right.

So will the liberal MSM take a chance and act as if nothing happened and let the public draw their conclusions regarding President Obama's involvement in the Benghazi attack based solely on what they saw and heard during the debate, or will there be a journalist among them who will step up and investigate the story and report the facts regardless of where they lead?

Who will be the last American journalist standing?