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.

I think it's kind of slimy that the Sinclair Broadcasting Group is ordering its stations to air an anti-Kerry documentary just before the election. And though I never like to judge something I haven't seen, it appears that the film in question is of dubious accuracy. Every time I hear something from those "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" and their allied organizations, my already-low appraisal of their credibility sinks lower. I think that, like certain talk radio hosts, they're just feeding bogus reasons to a segment of the population that's so desperate to hate the War Hero that they'll accept just about anything.

That said, I am also uncomfortable with the current efforts to pressure Sinclair's advertisers to withhold their dollars in ways that might then pressure Sinclair into changing its plans. I wish Sinclair would change its plans but I also do not like the idea of holding advertisers too responsible for the content of programming. They don't make the shows, they don't generally pre-screen the shows and they often buy ad time in bulk and don't even select the shows in which their commercials appear. I sure wouldn't like it if sponsors felt that since they're going to be blamed for what occurs on programs that air their ads, they have to get more involved in supervising scripts, casting, etc. The number one reason that TV execs play it safe or excise material that might offend someone from a show is that they're afraid the advertisers will flee…so I don't like the whole idea of encouraging them to flee, whether it's from this Kerry smear or that Reagans movie or anything.

In this case, heat is being applied to advertisers who have nothing to do with the attack on John Kerry. They're merely buying commercial time elsewhere on the station, presumably because they think it's good for their businesses…and most of them bought it before this whole matter came up. If I were the head of such a company, I'd answer the protests with a simple form letter that said, "We're only responsible for the content of our own commercials. We neither endorse nor condemn all that other stuff on the network that we have nothing to do with."

John Kerry said that we ought to reduce the terror threat so it's just a "nuisance." The Bush campaign is currently flogging the idea that the use of this word tells us something — I'm not clear on what — about Kerry and his wrong attitude towards terrorists. This strikes me, and probably even a lot of Bush voters, as a naked ploy to deliberately misinterpret what Kerry said.

I am honestly unsure if Bush's position is that we can win the war on terror…and if so, precisely what that means. I would like to think that we can win it to the extent that it becomes so rare that the word "war" no longer applies. Either that or we accept that forever and ever, there will always be the very real possibility of a chemical attack, a suicide bomber on a bus, another 9/11…or worse. There was a time when we didn't worry about such things and I would think that if and when that time comes again, it would not be improper to say we've won the "war." We could then say we'd reduced the terrorist threat to…well, if "nuisance" is the wrong word, let's find another one that denotes something that is a slight worry, the way it's a slight worry just to get on an airplane or just to drive on the freeway in bad weather.

I think the use of "nuisance" is just fine in that context…but if it isn't, so what? George W. Bush, of all people, should be tolerant of folks who use awkward phrasing.

Bush is the first person I can think of who has managed to convince a substantial part of America that he's not to blame for what comes out of his mouth. If Kerry uses the wrong word, people jump all over him. When Bush uses the wrong word, which is often, those same people say, "Oh, that's just the way he talks. You know what he really meant."

In the last debate, Bush made reference to "The Internets," plural. How fair would it be for the Kerry campaign to whip up an ad saying, "George Bush is so out of touch with the world today, he thinks there's more than one Internet"? Every time Bush opens his yap, he provides fodder for that kind of commercial. I'm not wild about a lot of the pro-Kerry ads but at least he hasn't resorted to that kind of gotcha.

The infamous Nixon tapes are being edited for public release. I don't think this bothers me but I'm not sure.

Garry Trudeau, its maker, is a guest on The Charlie Rose Show this evening. If it's already run in your area, you might check for a rerun tomorrow on your local PBS station.

All this week, Doonesbury is pointing its readers towards webpages on which prominent Conservatives endorse John Kerry. Today's link (to this article by John Eisenhower, son of Guess Who) created so much interest that it crashed the site of the Manchester Union Leader newspaper…though it seems to be accessible at the moment. Here's an article about the surge in their web traffic.

Just caught two episodes of Win Ben Stein's Money, a series that was done a few years ago for Comedy Central but which is now rerunning on Game Show Network. I forgot how much I enjoyed the show, especially the first three years when Jimmy Kimmel was the co-host. Mr. Stein was put on this planet to disprove the belief that Conservatives are never funny. His game show worked, in part because it was cleverly formulated and written but also because it was so real. Ben really liked the contestants but really wanted to beat them. Ben was really amused by about 80% of what Kimmel said and really mortified by the rest. The part about winning "Ben Stein's money" was a little fake inasmuch as it implied that he put up $5000 of his own money each day and kept whatever the contestants didn't get. (You had to read the fine print to understand that it didn't work quite like that.) But the show managed to be funny and a legitimate game show at the same time, and I can't think of many programs that have achieved both at the same time. It's back in reruns and I've taken a Season Pass on Ye Olde TiVo. You might want to give it a peek.