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.

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.