Let me rephrase the issue, then get your reactions. If a candidate (through his campaign staff) signs on to an agreement - SAYS he will abide by it - and then blatantly violates that agreement because it gives him a tremendous edge... Does the fact that the candidate cheated to be prepared to speak more effectively not matter?
That seems to be what you are saying. If Kerry cheated, he should be finished. As G.W. (George Washington) said, "God grant that our principle men be men of principle."
If this was an issue, it should have been brought up the day after the debate - not four days later.
The timing creates a distortion of desperation on our part. He spoke effectively, but so what? Many egoists do. However, what is everyone talking about? Global test and NK talks. Kerry defending himself on the stump the day after the debates proves he didn't win, whether he took something out of his pocket or not.
I love how everyone is so quick to attack the President because he can't come across as Bill Clinton in debating style, but when he hits some out of the park, everyone ignores and instead reaches for the easily graspable to highlight "unfair". This doesn't win friends and influence voters - it looks desperate.
IMHO, and I don't mind standing by my opinions, because that is all it is.