Almost everyone said Kerry won last night's debate and he seems to be pulling ahead in most polls.

Bill O'Reilly is being sued for sexual harassment by a lady who has tons of embarrassing alleged quotes from the man.

Could Al Franken be any happier today?

One thing I wish John Kerry had said last night, he could have said in response to Bush hectoring him about the supposed "93 times" he's voted to raises taxes. If I were Kerry — and by the way, you should all feel fortunate that I am not — I would have looked right into camera and said something like…

Folks, he keeps saying that and it's not true. But don't take my word for it. Don't trust either of us on stuff like this. Newspapers run "fact check" articles after these debates. There are whole websites, like the one Dick Cheney referred you to in his debate, where non-partisan researchers will give you the truth. Go to these sources and see what they have to say. This evening, I'm correcting a few numbers I got wrong in our previous two debates. The president here doesn't like to admit mistakes and when he does, it's always that he trusted the wrong person and they screwed up. But I accept the responsibility for what I say, and I'll accept the responsibility for whatever errors my administration might make. You, the American people, need to hold people like us strictly accountable.

I actually have been impressed with some of the fact-checking I've seen on websites. I'm not impressed with the difference it's making to the public discourse but, hey, it's a start.

I have one Bush-voting friend who admits that Kerry's supposed 93 votes to raise taxes are hokum but, he feels, it's okay for Bush to say that because, "We know that's the kind of person John Kerry is." In other words, it doesn't matter how many times he's voted to raise taxes. He's a Massachusetts Liberal and they're just genetic tax-raisers. That might be true, but I can't help thinking that this same friend backed Bush last time (and still does) because Bush isn't the kind of guy to spend so much money as to run up a huge deficit.

Here's a pretty important column by Frank Rich on the efforts of the Bush administration to muzzle and/or intimidate the press.

I'm pricing a new LCD TV for my office and I was just over on the Costco site and noticed that they're now selling coffins. I was about to post here that there was something creepy about this and then I thought: Why not? Charging people huge sums to bury a loved one has always been a large, exploitive scam. I think everyone should leave funeral instructions that say, "Bury me the cheapest way possible. Then take all the money you save and throw a big party for my friends."

I think it's nice that Costco doesn't make you buy them in a ten-pack…but do they have to list them all under "Hardware and Outdoor Living?"

Most of the polls are calling tonight's debate a solid victory for Kerry. Even after watching the fifteen minutes I missed (during which absolutely nothing of value was said, it turns out), I still think Bush did a little better than those polls indicate. Not that I'm not happier with Kerry winning.

You know…Kerry just, in the post-debate mingling, gave Bush a little pat on the back. He didn't seem to touch the area where the infamous bulge has been spotted but he could have. And if there had been something there, he could have reacted in surprise, thereby telling the world that Bush had something hidden there. This could also have happened after the first two debates. I think but am not certain that all three times, family members and friends came to the stage and there was hugging and hidden device could have been exposed.

I didn't think about that in the earlier "thinking through" post but it's a big point…and one that makes me think there was nothing there. In any case, unless there's some clear photo from tonight, I think this issue may be dead. And I'm wondering why the Bush people didn't do more to debunk it.

I missed about fifteen minutes in the middle but based on what I saw, I think both men did well and probably energized those who were already inclined to vote for them. I'm not sure about undecided voters. I'm not sure why anyone would even be an undecided voter at this point and what it would take to get them to decide. Anyway, let's all sit back and see who wins the post-debate spin.

The tube on my TV set is fluttering but it looks to me like these guys are wearing the exact same outfit. Same dark blue suits. Same red ties. Same American flag pins. I want Kerry to turn around so I can see if he has a bulge on this back.

Ouch. Kerry just spanked Bush on the assault weapon question.

So far, the big "pull quote" from this seems to be Bush's denial that he said he didn't care about bin Laden. He did say it and if there's video of him saying it, we're going to be seeing it tomorrow morning.

Bob Schieffer asked a good question about the necessity of a military draft in the future. And it sounded to me like both candidates tap-danced around it.

Isn't it interesting that when your candidate takes a stand that differs from the majority of Americans, it's an example of standing on principle and not governing by polls…but if the opposing candidate takes a stand that differs from the majority of Americans, he's wrong because he's out of the mainstream?

I think both men are doing better than they have in either of the previous match-ups. I'm also guessing a lot of folks are turning this off because they aren't hearing anything new.

I just left the set for about fifteen minutes to tend to something. Did Kerry mention anything about having a plan or about this being the first president in 72 years to lose jobs?

Oh, Jeez. They're both going to say all the same lines they said in the last two debates. Some of these phrases have now been rerun more times than the funeral of Chuckles the Clown.

Every shot I see today on the news channels has the anchor and his/her guests outside, with crowds massing behind them, holding placards and shouting slogans. During Crossfire, there was a guy in the background with his face painted red, waving some sort of illegible sign so you didn't even know who or what he was supporting. Right now, I'm watching Wolf Blitzer trying to talk over the ruckus of people yelling for and against Bush and Kerry.

Question #1: Why do the TV news channels put their cameras out there? There's nothing newsworthy about those people in the back of the shot, and it makes it harder to hear the people we're supposed to be able to hear. I don't think it makes things interesting. I don't think it tells us anything about the general mood of the community. What's the point of it?

Question #2: In this history of mankind, has anyone ever changed their vote because they saw someone flashing a sign and yelling a candidate's name? How would that thought process go? "You know, Martha, I was planning to vote Democratic…but while I was watching the news, I spotted a guy in a pig mask holding up a G.O.P. banner and…well, that really crystallized the issues for me so I've decided to vote Republican."

I assume the Bush supporters are out there now because they don't want it to be all-Kerry in the background, thereby suggesting that Arizona is going Democratic…and the Kerry fans are out there to prevent the Bush people from giving the opposite impression. But if CNN would just move their cameras inside, those folks wouldn't have to bother, and we could actually understand what Jeff Greenfield is trying to say, struggling to be heard over the din. (Hmm…that might be a good reason to keep the demonstrators out there, drowning him out…)

A lot of folks are sending me links to articles and questions about what I think of the "bulge" on Bush's back during the first debate…and there are even pictures from the second which seem to show the same bulge on occasion…and others that don't. This is a matter where it's real easy to descend into wild conspiracy theories. Let me see if I can lay down a few rational thoughts…

There does seem to be something there. It's rectangular. It's in many photos, including a few not from the debates. George W. Bush sometimes seems to have some sort of small, box-like object on his back and it's not just an odd fabric crease.

The White House denies it's there. They've also clearly denied Bush has used any sort of receiver. I haven't been able to track the exact nature of the denials but it seems to me they're firmly and officially denying that there's a receiver but rather casually denying that there's no rectangular object.

The charge that Bush needs an assist to debate is possibly injurious to his reputation. In an election that's running this close, you don't let a rumor like that circulate if you can possibly knock it down…and if there's really nothing there, it wouldn't be difficult. All they'd have to do is invite a few reporters to meet informally with Bush just before the debate tonight — or even just after — and have Bush not wear his coat. If there's nothing on his back, they'd report that…and if his debate manner was consistent with either previous appearance, that would bury the rumor. If they don't do something of the sort, that plus the photos would convince me that, yes, Bush has had something secreted on his person and that they're lying to say otherwise.

Okay, so if it is there, what the heck is it? I won't believe it's a receiver without proof of that. Has no one tried scanning frequencies in the debate hall? Or jamming all frequencies not being used by the microphones and tech crew? I admit I'm a little fuzzy on the science here. I understand it is now possible for someone to wear a tiny hearing aid that is stashed so far down in the ear canal that it's not visible. Is it also possible to broadcast to one of those devices in a manner that cannot be intercepted? I've read a dozen articles about this and all the "experts" seem to be dodging this question. It's like they don't think such a device could be undetectable but, aware that the White House has access to the most sophisticated, as-yet-unpublicized technology in the world, don't want to stake their reputations on that. I would also be curious to know: If it is a radio device, couldn't that bulge have been put somewhere less obvious on his body…like in the small of his back or around his lower leg? Or is the premise here that it needs to be close to his ears because the "transmitting" part of it has a very low range?

There may, of course, be an explanation that has nothing to do with Bush secretly receiving prompts for his speeches and debates…say, something that the Secret Service insists upon to monitor danger in the president's immediate vicinity. But if that's the case, they can't reasonably expect the president to walk around with a rectangular bulge on his back and to keep it an unexplained secret forever. If I were Karl Rove, I'd go to them and say, "This may cost us some votes. Go out and tell the press — on background, if you have to — that it's security related and you can't talk about it."

This may wind up being one of those "Urban Legend Mysteries" where we all know something's being hidden but we never know what. Eventually, speculation will take over and annihilate all chance of a reasonable, accepted answer. We'll be hearing Bush was a robot…that terrorists had an explosive device implanted in his back and have threatened to detonate it if he doesn't destroy the American economy and military…that the nuclear threat is so great that Bush dares not venture anywhere without the response buttons hidden on his body…that Martians have been scrambling his thought process and so he has to wear a device at all times to block their brain-interfering beta-rays…stuff like that. It would be nice to get proof that there is no device — or a solid explanation of the bulge — before we reach the science-fiction state.

The leadership of the Writers Guild has just agreed to a new 3-year contract with the AMPTP after months of working without a contract. A rough summary can be read in this press release.

I haven't seen all the terms but after years of reading WGA press releases that try to put a victorious spin on a mediocre deal, I think I'm seeing that again. Among other shortcomings, there's no improvement at all in DVD revenues and there seem to be rollbacks in a few areas.

Many of the terms seem to come right from the recent settlement that the Producers made with the Directors Guild. We have this thing in town called "pattern bargaining," which means that once one of the three above-the-line guilds has agreed to something, it becomes a line of demarcation for the others. If the directors accept a bad contract provision, it's difficult for the writers and actors to resist it…and I think a certain amount of that happened here. The DGA folded on DVD revenues so we had to, also. (The WGA leaders may also have figured that this is an area best left to the Screen Actors Guild, which claims to be quite militant about it. Actors have a much greater capacity to shut down production if they strike, so the feeling may be, "Let them fight for this.")

The deal won't be official until it is ratified by the membership. I'm guessing there will be a loud, angry movement within the Guild that will try to defeat it and send the negotiators back to the bargaining table to get more. I'm also guessing that this movement will not succeed.