Another big winner last night was Jon Stewart. His live post-debate edition of The Daily Show got its highest rating ever — 2.4 million viewers, up from a previous "best" of 1.9 on 1/21/04. (John McCain was his guest that night.) This goes to what I was saying in a few earlier posts about how the talk show of the future will be live and spontaneous.

Tonight, the night when America is still talking about what happened last night, Leno will have a topical monologue but Letterman will have a show taped last Monday. And actually, if I'd been Leno, I would have done my show live last night. One of the advantages he has over Dave is the time difference, and he's rarely used it to his advantage.

Obviously, I'm pleased with the general consensus that Kerry clobbered Bush in the debate last night. But I find myself in the odd position of feeling that Bush didn't do as poorly as some of his most loyal followers are now conceding. Or maybe it's that I think he's always been like this. I want to ask Republicans who are now decrying his poor performance if they've been paying attention to this man the last few years. This is how he's always been. The little gaffes. The tendency to start sentences and then freeze because he realizes he has no idea where he's going with them. The mispronounced or inappropriate words. This is the guy they've been backing since he won the G.O.P. nomination back in 2000. If he sounded more shaky than usual in defending his positions, it's because his positions are becoming increasingly difficult to defend.

This A.M., both sides are talking about Bush's "performance" and they're cobbling together highlight reels of the debate, emphasizing or avoiding the grimaces and smirks and pained looks. But this really should not be about facial expressions. I wouldn't care how Bush reacted in a debate if he'd somehow been able to defend his policies in Iraq. He could have put his thumbs in his ears, waved his fingers and gone, "Boogie, boogie, boogie" if he had a coherent explanation of why it was more important to stop Hussein from using weapons he didn't have than it was to focus on other nations not getting nuclear capabilities.

On some site I read this morning — I forget which — a Bush supporter said someone has to tell Bush that there's a difference between "staying on message" and repeating the same catch-phrases over and over like a stuck phonograph. True…but this has always been a presidency of glib catch-phrases, not only uttered by George W. but plastered all over the walls behind him when he speaks. He didn't do anything different last night except do it in a venue where he couldn't control the questions and the audience hadn't signed loyalty oaths to get in. And — oh, yeah — there was someone up there to disagree with him. If he knew what he was doing, none of that would have made a difference.

William Saletan points out — and I think he's right — that George W. Bush is not about doing the right thing but about having the right nobility of character.

The Washington Post fact-checks the debate. So does The Los Angeles Times. So does The Associated Press.

All the post-debate polls are saying Kerry "won" (I still don't think that's the right word) and an amazing number of Conservative websites and pundits are either agreeing or claiming it was a draw. And these last are the kind of partisans who'd be claiming Bush won big if there was any possible way they could say that with a straight face. Maybe I need to watch it again but I didn't think Bush did that poorly. I thought he looked more like a leader than he did in that prime-time press conference…the one where he couldn't think of a single mistake he'd made. And his fans had no trouble spinning that as a bravuro performance.

So I guess I was wrong that all his partisans would be out spinning that their guy cleaned Kerry's clock. Some are but some are talking about how Reagan did poorly in his first debate against Walter Mondale but bounced back in the second.

Hey, remember how I said I was going to dinner? I went down to my favorite place for a quick meal, Koo Koo Roo. While there, I overheard two people talking about the debate. One was talking about the question where Kerry was asked what he thought was the greatest threat to the United States and he answered, "Nuclear proliferation." The other Koo Koo Roo diner said, "He only said that because he thought Bush couldn't pronounce it."

E.L. Doctorow has some withering criticism of George W. Bush. (Thanks to Mike Groman for the link.)

I thought Kerry did well, though maybe not in a way that will translate into more votes. He looked presidential and he gave what were mostly short, easy-to-follow replies. I don't understand how people can look at Bush's "deer-in-the-headlights" blank stares and see a leader. But then I never understood how women can look at Mick Jagger and see a sex symbol.

Bush and his spinmeisters seem to be throwing up a number of arguments that almost argue that someone in Bush's position can never be criticized. Rudy Giuliani is on The Daily Show, saying "I don't know how you tell those young men and women [serving in the military] to continue to carry on this war if [you're saying] it's a mistake." Well, okay, but what happens if our leaders do err? Doesn't that argument work to quash any sort of criticism of any military effort?

Bush kept reminding people that Kerry said Saddam Hussein was a threat who should be removed. I kept waiting for Kerry to say, "Yes, but that didn't mean that I don't care how many Americans were killed, how much money was spent and how our forces were taken away from more pressing business to accomplish that removal."

Question: If the studio audience is not allowed to react to anything, why even have them there?

I thought Bush was better at the end of the debate than he was at the beginning. There were moments, especially in his last few statements, where he sounded statesmanlike and like a guy who wanted to be a "uniter, not a divider." I thought Kerry may have gone a long way to debunking claims that he doesn't have actual plans or that he can't give a straight answer.

And I think tomorrow, the polls will be all over the place.

I'm going to go get something to eat.

I'm watching live. Bush looks defensive. He's the one who wanted the strict rules on how long they could talk and how they could not address each other. But he's the one who keeps wanting the 30 second follow-ups so he can say more.

I think he loses points just because so much of the discussion is about what he may or may not have done wrong. And a few more points for using, over and over, certain talking points like the one about Kerry saying, "Wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." But I'm sure his followers will think he kicked Kerry's heinie.

As I may have suggested here, another thing I don't like about debates like the Presidential one tonight is the use of the word, "win." It's easy to discuss who won the World Series or the Super Bowl or a game of Candy Land. There are explicit rules and official scorekeepers who operate according to those rules. After the Lakers play the Pacers, you don't have representatives of both teams out arguing that their side shellacked the opposition.

But tonight, even before the podiums are cold, partisans and reps will be out in full force, arguing that their guy "won." And I suspect that no matter what the polls say tomorrow morning, most of those folks will still be insisting that the numbers prove the overwhelming victory. (Though they'll argue this more forcefully after the final debate. They still have to lower expectations for their candidate's performance in the next two.)

With a couple of exceptions, I have not been too impressed with John Kerry's speeches lately. On the other hand, I've never been too impressed with any of Bush's public statements, especially in those very rare occasions lately when he's put himself in the position of answering a question from someone who wasn't out to throw him a softball.

I'm not sure if I'm going to watch the whole thing, straight through. I'm recording it on the TiVo and I may go out, take a walk and get some dinner. I may come back, watch the spin first, then watch the debate and see how it measures up. Or maybe I'll skip the whole thing and watch DVDs. I just got The Complete Honeymooners and that could have a lot more to do with the world today than anything Bush or Kerry is likely to say.

Jon Stewart, who is probably getting a lot of interesting phone calls this week, will be doing The Daily Show live tonight following the Presidential Debate. And here's an interview with him.

If you order it through this Amazon link, they'll tell you that the second volume of The Complete Peanuts is not out yet. But I got my copy the other day and I'm enjoying it just as much as the first version, which I reviewed here. Pretty much everything I said about Volume 1 applies to Volume 2, except that it doesn't have as much text material and the foreword is by Walter Cronkite. It's still fun to watch Mr. Schulz's style and characters develop, especially in this one which covers 1953-1954 — years in which Schulz invented a lot of phrases, concepts and kids he used for decades. I've heard a few folks grumble that the books in this series are too small. They're forgetting that Peanuts was always intended to be run small. I've heard a few others complain about the art direction. They're nitpicking. And I've heard a few moan about how much it will eventually cost to collect them all. They're right, but it'll be worth it. End of review.

My longtime pal Jim Korkis writes to say, "I assume that many animation scholars other than myself will write to remind you of Johnny Carson's animated appearance on The Simpsons where he could superhumanly lift a car among other things." No, Jim, you're the first.

Have I mentioned lately what a smart guy Ben Varkentine is?

From Mike Groman comes this response to something I posted six hours ago…

I can't speak about Democrats, because I don't know too many of them, but I think you're wrong that "most Republicans would admit they wish they had a guy who could speak better English and hadn't led us into a dual quagmire of Iraq and The Deficit." The Republicans I know — not all from here in Texas, btw — look upon Bush and his administration as defenders of the faith, bastions against the Democrats and the rest of the anti-American liberals. They revel in the tax cuts, completely dismissing the record deficit, strained economy, and increased joblessness as being unrelated, and ignoring the facts that the greatest beneficiaries of the cuts are those who need them least. They glory in the defense of the right to bear arms, asserting that any abridgement of these rights — such as the poorly conceived ban on assault weapons that recently expired — is unconstitutional. They look upon the invasion of Iraq as being a just war and discount the worsening situation during the post-war occupation as being unrelated to Bush's policies and methods. They applaud the application of religious morality to the governance of the country, from "conservatization" of federal courts to restriction of scientific research. They still think Rush Limbaugh is the new Moses.

Am I a Democrat? No. I'm an independent. Until the last two presidential elections, beginning in 1972, I've voted Democrat only once, and I regretted it. My liberal friends say I'm a conservative and my conservative friends say I'm a liberal. I'm neither. I'm a male, straight, pro-choice, concealed handgun toting, pro-science, widowed and divorced, comic book reading, retired military pilot who served in Southeast Asia. I vote on the issues. I don't particularly like Kerry; he seems only marginally more competent, based on his public appearances and speeches, than Bush. However, he's our only hope, Obiwan. For the good of the United States, we need to replace Bush before he and the Republicans do any more damage. Let's just hope Kerry and the Democrats aren't any worse.

Well, you may be right about "most Republicans"…or I may be right and the denial is deeper than I suggested. I don't know how anyone could think that what's happening in Iraq is unrelated to Bush's policies and methods, but I can certainly understand how some couldn't bear to admit it, even to themselves. I'm a little more confident in Kerry's ability than you are, but not a lot. With the kind of voter you describe, it may not matter. They have a vision of Liberals and America that isn't going to change. The best I think Kerry can hope for with them is that they may begin to feel that George W. is not the man they think he is. That won't make them vote for Kerry-Edwards but it might make some of them a little less eager to run out and vote Bush-Cheney on Election Day. Still, I can't help but believe there's no one in their ranks who wouldn't be a lot happier if their guy was the war hero and he seemed to have a better handle on Iraq and the economy.

As we predicted here, Conan O'Brien is planning to do his last Late Night broadcast six months before he takes over The Tonight Show so he can have a vacation and lots of prep time. He'll tentatively close out the 12:35 show on Dec. 31, 2008 and then the handover of power will probably be timed to coincide somehow with the "sweeps" rating period.

Oh — and before I forget, I wanted to mention this: For some time now, David Letterman has put in a four-day week. On Thursdays, they would tape two shows, one to air on Friday. They've just changed, and now the Friday show is being taped the previous Monday — which means that throughout the election season, Dave's Friday shows will have to be largely devoid of current events. He's already taped the show that will run this Friday, following the Thursday night presidential debate.

The move may seem necessary for Dave's health or staff fatigue or some other reason, but I think it's also a step in the wrong direction. Audiences in this Internet/cable news age are becoming more demanding of immediacy. Once upon a time, J. Carson could air one rerun a week (plus another on the weekend), and eight whole weeks of reruns per year…and those reruns were generally a year old. In today's late night market, that would be suicide. Dave and Jay air reruns sparingly and rarely reach back more than six or so weeks for them. Eventually, I'll predict, even that won't be enough. One of these days, someone's going to do a talk show which will not only be done live but will do away with prepared conversational points. It will also attempt stunts and bits that just might not work, and it'll be up to the host to keep things afloat. If they get the right host, that will become the new Gold Standard for late night TV.

(By the way: If all this seems trivial…well, it is. It's just my way of not getting a headache by trying to figure out the presidential election. Hmm…maybe Dave has the right idea…)