... on the second debate

I didn't get a chance to watch the debate on Friday night, and have only watched parts of it during CNN 'encores'. I did notice that Bush was more coherent this time around, marked by glee among his supporters who continue to champion his performance. Indeed, he put in a strong showing. Kerry articulated strong points well but then that is not a surprise, while Bush's delivery was. Nevermind that the President sounded like a whining 3-year old child when trying to defend his position.

'Mr Bush sounded like a passionate preacher, while Mr Kerry made his case like a lawyer.'
When it comes to the Office of the President of the United States, I think it is safer to go with the lawyer who builds a case based on logic and evidence than the passionate preacher who tries to gain support by appealing to emotion and capitalizing on fear. But that's just what I think.

If Bush did as well as his supporters claim, then why do the polls indicate that Bush and Kerry are tied with 48% support each, or that Kerry is in the lead? Before the debates began, Bush was clearly ahead in the polls. If his last performance was that good wouldn't it have put Bush back in the lead? Or perhaps Americans are finally stepping up to the plate.

Also, was Bush wearing a wire during the first debate?