Tuesday morning, Turner Classic Movies is running The Hollywood Revue of 1929, one of the first talkies ever made and a movie with an amazing cast. How amazing is it? It's this amazing: Stan Laurel, Oliver Hardy, Jack Benny, Marion Davies, John Gilbert, Norma Shearer, Joan Crawford, Buster Keaton, Cliff Edwards, Conrad Nagel, Marie Dressler, Gus Edwards, Polly Moran, Bessie Love and a number of others. Among other highlights in this plotless spectacular, Laurel and Hardy do a short but funny magic act, Buster Keaton dances a ballet, Cliff "Ukulele Ike" Edwards leads most of the cast as he introduces the song, "Singin' in the Rain"…and Jack Benny makes his screen debut.

Benny is the host, in fact. At one point early in the film, he introduces Conrad Nagel as "a name to conjure with…" and as per the script, he mispronounces the word, "conjure." As filmed, this then led to a brief sequence in which Nagel corrected him, but that bit was cut, leaving Benny saying the word wrong for no apparent purpose. One of the main reviews of the film said, "If Mr. Benny wishes to have a film career, he had better learn the English language."

Also, in case you read this in time: Much of today on TCM is taken up with Buster Keaton flicks, both sound and silent. Many funny things in there.

The highly-talented Lennie Weinrib sends me this article that explains what Bush and Kerry would each do about health care in this country.

A couple of folks have written me, as if I could do anything about it, to say that they disagree with the picks on the E! Specials, The 101 Most Unforgettable SNL Moments. Well, of course you disagree. These are just the selections of some anonymous folks whose opinions are bound to be different from yours or mine.

That said, it occurred to me that if I were asked to mention the SNL bit that I've most often heard people mention over the years, it would be one that wasn't anywhere in the 101. It would be the time Lorne Michaels appeared on the show to offer the Beatles a whopping $3000 to reunite and appear on Saturday Night Live.

So, uh, what do you suppose is on Ralph Nader's mind these days? Something like, "Hmm…I didn't get into the debates. I haven't gotten any real publicity. I stand a good chance of doing worse this year than last time. And if it looks like I threw one or more states to Bush and won him the election, a lot of people are going to come after me with large, pointed sticks. Gee, maybe running for president wasn't such a good idea, after all."

Another fact-check on the first Presidential Debate, this one courtesy of our friends at Spinsanity.

I just re-read a line I posted earlier and changed my mind about it. It was the one that went, "I don't think we have any real post-debate polls yet. When we do, I wouldn't expect them to reflect any real gain for Kerry."

I'm thinking I discounted the "horse race" mentality of the press, and with the tendency of some pollsters to hedge their positions. I think there will be a number of polls that show Kerry even or maybe a little ahead. Why? Because "Kerry Comes From Behind With Debate Victory" is a better headline than "Debate Has No Impact on Polls." Even Fox News can afford the leisure, this far before Election Day, of going with the hot story.

I'm also thinking that we forget, or at least I forgot how impressive Kerry's numbers were on the debate. Going in, the polls had Bush at around 48% and Kerry at 43% or thereabouts. So if on the question of which candidate "won," Bush got 48% and Kerry got 43%…well, that would pretty much mean that no minds were changed; that everyone thought their guy was still their guy. For Kerry to even tie Bush in the post-debate polling would probably mean that a certain number of Bush supporters thought Kerry outperformed their candidate, which is not an easy admission for most voters to make, and one that's indicative of a certain softness in their Bush preference. That alone would be great news for Kerry. That he beat Bush by at least ten points (twenty in some counts) means that at the very least, he connected with a lot of people who were predisposed to vote Republican. He did not rack up those numbers just with Democrats or even with Democrats and Undecideds.

So I'll change and predict that we're about to see a couple of major polls that will have Kerry and Bush in a dead heat…and at least one that puts Kerry ahead.

The E! Channel now owns the rebroadcast rights to all the past seasons of Saturday Night Live. So far, they have stuck to the last few years with occasional dips into the Phil Hartman/Dana Carvey years.

But this last week — with reruns throughout this weekend — they've offered a fun overview of the series. They had five hour-long shows that counted down The 101 Most Unforgettable SNL Moments as determined by…uh, I have no idea. But whoever it was, they selected a pretty wide range of clips from all seasons, showing off all the major players and darn near every recurring bit. The clips are maddeningly brief. Most of the shows consist of interviews with a wide range of people (some who worked on SNL, many who didn't) reminiscing about their favorite routines.

Naturally, every SNL fan will disagree mightily with the rankings. Some folks (I am not one of them) think the first five seasons were the high point not just of the series but of all television comedy. Whoever made this list doesn't seem to agree. I think the highest-ranked moment from the original cast was a Blues Brothers appearance, which made the chart at #18. And the next ones below that were Roseanne Roseannadanna (#25), a Samurai sketch (#29) and the Coneheads (#32). You can evaluate the selections yourself beginning on this page.

To save you looking: They awarded #1 to the "Wayne's World" sketch that guested Aerosmith. And #2 was the opening with Rudy Giuliani and Lorne Michaels on the first broadcast after 9/11.

Even if you're aghast that certain sketches are ranked high, low or omitted, it's a real history of an important franchise. What I wish E! would do, and I doubt this will happen, is to take these five one-hour shows and replace the short clips with the full sketches. It would probably expand the countdown to at least 30 hours but it would make for a very entertaining weekend marathon.

Jeremy Waite wrote to ask, "If you don't like people saying that someone 'won' a Presidential Debate, what term would you use?" I'd say that someone helped or hurt their candidacy…and the measure of that doesn't necessarily have to translate into a significant swing in the polls in the days following. Kerry reportedly received a huge boost in campaign contributions immediately following the debate so that alone helps him. I think he also got a lot of folks across America to say, "Hmm…he looks and talks like a president." A lot of potential voters have probably known him to some extent as the caricature painted by Cheney speeches, Bush advertising and Swift Boat Veteran fibs. I would think that a number of those folks are now more receptive to the notion that there's more to John Kerry than they thought.

Mostly, I think it's a matter of momentum. A very large number of people are not going to switch their allegiance even if their candidate shows up at the debate in drag…but some of those people might get less enthused about making it to the polls on Election Day. Another chunk of the electorate is soft in their selection. This is probably a very small group but it might be able to swing a couple of states.

The portrait of Bush on Thursday night was not flattering. If it becomes the popular perception of the man, he'll probably lose. The reason many Democrats are enthused at the moment is that they think that's the real Bush and the nation is finally beginning to see that. The reason many Republicans aren't worried is that they either think it wasn't the real Bush or that, in their hearts, the American people would still rather have that guy than someone who would bring Kerry's values to the White House.

I don't think we have any real post-debate polls yet. When we do, I wouldn't expect them to reflect any real gain for Kerry. I think Bush is going to have to stumble at least one more time before the caricature of him — uninformed, less than honest, too stubborn to change course when something isn't working — will translate into states swinging away from him.

Just fixed the link on the Frank Rich article (sorry) and added a bit of additional info to my new page about Space Mouse. A fine way to start the day.

Three different folks have written to tip me off to the name of the person who, they say, has been quietly signed to host The Late, Late Show (i.e., the 12:35 show that follows Letterman). All three asked me not to mention the name here, so I won't. But I don't think it would be violating their request if I say that the identity of the alleged new host appears in this New York Times article by Bill Carter.

Carter mentions that Stephen Colbert of The Daily Show turned down the job. Colbert is easily one of the three funniest people seen regularly on my TV these days, but I think he's better suited to what he's already doing. (I think he also has a pilot for another show lurking at one of the networks…)

Frank Rich on a new documentary that claims we must re-elect George W. Bush because he's either Jesus Christ or the next best thing. Apparently, Christ would have made a darn good wartime president.

My pal Lou Mougin is not the first person to write me and ask…

I remember, and have on scans, some of the Space Mouse comics from Dell in the early sixties. Problem was, even though it was copyright by Walter Lantz, I never saw a Space Mouse cartoon on TV. Did the character ever appear in a cartoon, or was it just something Lantz wanted to try for the comic books?

And since Lou is the third or fourth person to ask this — and because I may be the only human being alive who knows the answer — I've decided to answer it over in the section of this site called Incessantly-Asked Questions. Here's the straight skinny.

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.