That, irrespective of what it was, was against the rules. That's all I am saying. I believe it looks like notecards, but I am perfectly willing to say that without further resoultion of the pics, I can't say for sure, or what (if anything) was on them. But, according to what follows...none of that matters according to the rules.
From section 5, pages 4-5 of the binding "Memorandum of Understanding" (pdf file) that was negotiated and agreed upon by both political campaigns:
(c) No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by either candidate.
... (d) Notwithstanding subparagraph 5(c), the candidates may take notes during the debate on the size, color and type of paper each side prefers. Each candidate must submit to the staff of the Commission prior to the debate all such paper and any pens or pencils with which a candidate may wish to take notes during the debate, and the staff or commission will place such paper, pens and pencils on the podium, table or other structure to be used by the candidate in that debate.
Well, Bush broke a couple of rules, as well.
One I caught right away was when he wanted to respond to Kerry on a lie, and he started to rebut, caught himself, and then asked Lehrer if he could rebut what was stated.
Petty, I know, but it's devolving into degrees of pettiness four days after the fact.
I am deeply concerned by this - most of the people thought Bush blew it (which is crazy!), then they think Kerry cheated. Freepers fells for the spin of style and didn't even bother discussing the substance (or even the Samarra sneak that very night). What is the underlying theme here? Why is so much emphasis being placed on rules in debates that typically don't matter?
Is it because they a) Don't have faith in the election or, b) in the rush of media coverage, everyone wants to be the next Buckhead?
I would prefer to be proven wrong and there is a smoking gun, but that isn't going to happen.