[Khaosai]

I disagree with you on two points. First, I am not as convinced as you seem to be the President Bush lost - Kerry clearly took something, I don't know what, out of his pocket and placed it on the lectern. It's against the rules period, win, lose or draw.

GW lost the debate - but it wasn't because of anything Kerry did - It was because Kerry never had to defend his awful 20 year Senate record on National Security.

Spin it all you want. But why the Kerry people and MSM are so happy is that for 90 minutes while 55 million Americans watching (and more reading about it) Kerry's awful 20 year senate record of being WRONG on the Cold War, WRONG on the first Gulf War, WRONG on cutting funds to the CIA, etc, etc....None of this was brought up -

Bottom line at the end of the night. Kerry wins because of this. GW was on the defensive all night. Kerry escaped having to defend his record.

[Enduring Freedom]

BUSH WAS OFF HIS GAME.

KERRY CHEATED.

WHAT'S WORSE?

[livius]

That's not the point. Cheating, regardless of its result, is not okay in and of itself, especially beyond the high school debating team level.

[jennyjenny]

I am not saying that if Kerry broke the rules, then Bush wins the debate. I am saying if he cheated, he cheated. People don't like cheaters.

[El Gato]

Bottom line at the end of the night. Kerry wins because of this. GW was on the defensive all night. Kerry escaped having to defend his record.

And that was true because the moderator controlled the issues and the flow. Did he ask a single question about Kerry's record on national security issues? Or ask Bush what he thought of Kerry's record? I don't remember any such question(s).