Tonight's the last debate. You all know that but I figured you'd enjoy reading those words. In fact, I'll type them a few more times just because it feels so good: Tonight's the last debate. Tonight's the last debate. Tonight's the last debate. Tonight's the last debate. Tonight's the last debate.

Trump lost big in the polls after the first one because, I think, Hillary looked like a leader while he looked like someone on a bad reality show, ginning up phony emotion and anger. He obviously didn't see it that way because for the second debate, he ramped up the nasty, thrilling his base but probably not attracting anyone new to it. Depending on which pollster you believe, he either lost a little more ground or merely didn't gain. And when you're running behind, not gaining is losing.

So you'd think he'd try something different. Scowling, hurling threats and practically stalking his opponent on stage didn't help him so for a brief, delusional moment, I thought he'd stop hating on the Clintons and President Obama and would instead try convincing America that he has the disposition to deal with conflict and a lot of solid ideas. Then I read this…

President Obama's Kenyan-born, half-brother Malik will be in the audience in Las Vegas Wednesday night when Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton square off in their third and final debate. Malik — an American citizen who lives in Washington, DC, when he's not in Kenya — says he will be a guest of Trump, the Republican nominee he supports for president.

Looks like we're in for more stunts and personal accusations. What was that definition of "insanity" again?

By the way: Tonight's the last debate. Maybe ever with anyone.

---

I'm getting more e-mails from folks who've been to NBC who question my assumption that that clip from The Steve Allen Show (this one) started and ending on Stage 1. They may be right. The fine announcer-person Randy West thinks…

They leave 1, parallel the midway, then make a 90-degree right-turn where the cable was being pulled, and where the cable will now be fed out. They walk through what later became studio 10 (local news) and out to the hallway and into 4, where Dinah was.

Quite possible. I'm not all that familiar with that section of the building. I did shows on Stage 1 and Stage 3, and am pretty sure that the action starts in 1 and that Steve and Eydie emerge from the corridor that runs between 1 and 3. I visited the other stages — I think The Flip Wilson Show was on on Stage 4 — but I don't remember the numbers that well. Then again, it's also possible that some of the layout of that place was altered between the time Steverino did his show there in '58 and when some of us were there.

By the way: As noted, that episode of The Steve Allen Show aired on February 9, 1958, which was a Sunday. Steve's show was on from 8 PM to 9 PM and then it was followed at 9:00 by The Dinah Shore Chevy Show — so this was not only a neat bit of video magic but it was also a cross-promotion to stay tuned for Dinah. Wonder if Steve or any of his guests were part of Dinah's program that night.

---

Last night, Stephen Colbert had an odd parlay of guests: Barack Obama and Bill O'Reilly. Obama took part in a sketch recorded somewhere else at some other time so he wasn't in the studio when O'Reilly was. Jeri Kline wrote to ask me why Colbert, who clearly does not share O'Reilly's political viewpoints, keeps having that man on.

Well, I think that's part of the reason. A variety of opinions is not a bad thing. Also, though O'Reilly does not appear to be a particular fave of Conservatives, having him on does do something to counteract the claim that Colbert's show is just left-wing propaganda. It forces the folks who'd say that to instead say, "Almost all left-wing propaganda."

But I also think he has O'Reilly on because he likes the banter that results and he also seems to have a certain respect for the guy. Folks in show business often respect someone else just because they've been able to build a successful franchise. Letterman felt that way about Rush Limbaugh, O'Reilly and a few others. Didn't agree with them but he couldn't pretend they hadn't done a great job of amassing a following and connecting with those followers. And I also suspect that O'Reilly's past appearances probably registered enough of a ratings uptick that someone said, "We've got to have that guy back."

There was one interesting moment near the end of the interview. It was time to plug O'Reilly's new book and of course, they were playfully insulting each other. O'Reilly said of his book, "You desperately need to read this book…or have someone read it to you!"

I don't claim to be able to read minds but I have the feeling that the retort that flashed into Colbert's mind at that moment was: "Well, maybe I can get the guy who actually wrote it for you!" Then, I'm guessing, he instantly decided that was a bit nastier than the level at which he keeps his verbal jousting with O'Reilly so he said what he did say, which was: "Will you?"

Of course, I could be wrong…

• The total number of women who claim Trump harassed them just passed the total number of non-white people voting for him.
• Trump planning to end third and final debate by bringing out watermelon, smashing it with Sledge-o-Matic. Chris Wallace bringing poncho.
• Melania Trump sez Billy Bush tricked Donald into talking dirty. If that's true, imagine what Vladimir Putin could trick Donald into doing!

John Green explains the differences between Donald Trump's plans for healthcare in the United States and Hillary Clinton's proposals. You'll never guess which one I think is better…

John McCain says, "I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up." And then later, his office issues a statement — presumably at his direction — that says, "Senator McCain will, of course, thoroughly examine the record of any Supreme Court nominee put before the Senate and vote for or against that individual based on their qualifications as he has done throughout his career." A lot that is wrong with politics these days is to be found in that hurried walkback.

And this was the guy who used to claim to be a Straight Talker and who named his campaign bus The Straight-Talker Express.

But hey, it looks like Hillary is coasting to a big win. Harry Enten explains why Trump fans should not expect a replay of the famous "Dewey Beats Truman" reversal. I think we're in for a lot of "Trump really won but the media conspired against him," which of course they did by letting America hear him talk.

---

A lot of folks were very impressed by that Steve Allen Show clip I embedded here the other day. If you watch it again, try to imagine physically how the performers — especially Steve Allen and Steve Lawrence — stepped out of the shot and then back into it. The more you look at this number, the more remarkable it is.

Of course, nowadays it's no big deal for performers to leave the studio with the camera following them. A week or two ago, Stephen Colbert and his guest Mindy Kaling walked out the Ed Sullivan Theater in New York and hiked down W. 53rd Street to the Duane Reade drugstore at 8th Avenue. Yeah, but they didn't put themselves in the position of having to get it in one. In the studio, Colbert said to Ms. Kaling, "Hey, let's go to the Duane Reade right now" and we saw them get up and walk out the door to the street…and then the director cut to a recording made earlier in the day. The "outside the studio" activities were done in one continuous take but they could have stopped and started over.

Friends who work on talk shows have told me that the reason we don't see more spontaneity and risk-taking these days is that guest stars are afraid of being thrust into such situations — or that if they aren't, their publicists are. While there's probably some truth to that, I think it's also the hosts who fear moments when things collapse around them and it's necessary to ad-lib. Also, there's an emphasis on polish over reality. I still think that if the right host were to open himself up to winging it more often, that would be very popular.

---

Speaking of late night hosts, here's a current profile of David Letterman, a man who's apparently now trying to decide what he wants to be when he grows up. It's odd to see him wonder why today's late night hosts are so buddy-buddy because it's well-known that he could have had that relationship with Jay Leno and declined to go that way.

Not that he cares what I or anyone else thinks, but I'd love to see Letterman just have a weekly hour on some cable channel that would be happy with any kind of ratings at all, just so they could be associated with him. I'm imagining just Dave and one or two guests per show, sitting and talking — and they'd select guests he's interested in, as opposed to anyone who seems hot at the moment and therefore an audience draw. No bits, no band, no musical guests, no Rupert Gee, no monologue…just Dave conversing with interesting people. I can't imagine how that wouldn't be fun for him and for viewers.

By the way: I think it's a myth that when Johnny Carson left The Tonight Show, he made a conscious decision to give up appearing before the public. I think he looked and looked for the right thing to do and never found it. Eventually, he may have concluded that he'd painted himself into an ivory tower and there was nothing he could do that seemed worthy of the once and future King of Late Night. Everything also probably involved risking too much of his reputation.

I heard from people around Carson — Fred DeCordova to name one — that Johnny had a dread fear of trying to stay in front of the public long after his time. The later years of Milton Berle were often mentioned as something he did not wish to replicate and oddly enough, the other night I watched an Antenna TV rerun of a Tonight Show with Uncle Miltie from 1974. Berle lived until 2002 but even in '74, it was awkward and unfunny. He was trying topical humor which didn't connect and talking a lot about his past triumphs while still trying to let us know how he was so busy these days because there was so much demand for him.

One of Johnny's great skills was his ability to save guests who, once in his chair, turned out to not have much to say that was amusing. He was also good at gently nudging self-indulgent guests off the topic of their own greatness. (Due to extensive pre-interviewing — the kind I wish they didn't do — hosts today don't particularly need this ability.) You could see but only if you looked closely that Johnny was thinking Berle required a lot of help. And maybe something like, "I hope I have the good sense to get off stage before I start coming off like that."

Dave Letterman is nowhere near that obsolescence. I wish he'd stop giving interviews where he says he isn't sure what to do and instead just do something. That's one thing that would make his friends and fans very happy. Another would be shaving.

We love to link to interviews with the Monty Python members. Here's a good one with Michael Palin…

The film This is Spinal Tap came out in 1984. It was made for a very low budget, was a huge success, and has since lived on via home video, cable, CDs and almost every form of exploitation you can imagine. Its creators — Christopher Guest, Michael McKean, Rob Reiner and Harry Shearer — were entitled to profit participation of 40% of net receipts based on all sources of revenue including merchandise and music. Guess how much they've received in those payments in the 32 years since that film first hit theaters. Guess real low.

Harry Shearer has filed a lawsuit which may well be worth watching. Folks who feel ripped-off in such situations usually threaten, sometime file but almost always settle for five or ten cents on the dollar to go away. I know enough about Harry to know he ain't gonna do that.

We mentioned not long ago that the company that operates Souplantation and Sweet Tomatoes restaurants is in financial trouble and is closing outlets. My buddy Tony Tollin sent me this link to an article in The Wall Street Journal about that firm's problems and the woes of others. As is typical for that newspaper, the article talks about demand and growth and discretionary income and population trends…but there's not a word in there about the quality of the product.

I stopped being an avid patron of Souplantations because the food wasn't as good as it used to be. Is it even remotely possible that their business has declined because I am not alone in that viewpoint? The article mentions several other chains but only two with which I have personal experience — the Olive Garden and the company that operates Hometown Buffet. I used to be a customer for each occasionally if I happened to be near one…but now when I am, I go to better places that have opened in those areas.

I know businesses come and go for a lot of reasons having to do with overhead and investment and market conditions and demographics and other factors that accountants can track. But doesn't the concept of good food figure somewhere into that discussion?

A strike is looming. SAG-AFTRA members who perform voices for interactive video games will withhold services beginning on October 21 if they don't like the contract that game producers are offering at that time. It currently looks like the two sides are far apart and the work stoppage is likely…but it often looks that way at this stage of a contentious negotiation.

There seem to be many outstanding issues. One is that the actors want limitations on how long they must work on a project that requires a lot of screaming and stress on the vocal cords. That's a very legitimate concern. If you've ever attended one of my Cartoon Voices panels at Comic-Con, you've heard actors tell their horror stories of having to vocally "die" in hundreds of different ways because the video game offers a hundred different ways in which their character might perish. They go home from work sounding like the Frankenstein Monster with laryngitis…not a good thing to have happen a lot when you make your living with your voice.

There's also a weird series of demands from the game companies that they should be able to fine actors who are late for sessions or who in somebody's opinion aren't "fully engaged" in their work. They also want to fine agents — or even have agencies' license revoked — if an agency refuses to send its clients in for auditions. I don't get that at all. Keep in mind that if you're a videogame company and some agent refuses to send his clients to your company for auditions, the only conceivable reason is that you have a history of mistreating actors. Also, remember that actors have every right to not audition if they don't wanna.

But you should also keep in mind that some demands in a negotiation are only there so they can be dropped. For years, the producers who were negotiating with the Writers Guild would always make some demand at first to be able to screw with screen credits and to not have to correct them if they were wrong. They didn't really want that. They wanted to be able to give us a meaningless (for them) "win" when they dropped that demand, hoping we'd then feel like we won something when we didn't win on The Money.

Which brings us to The Money. That's what this threatened strike is really about. It's what 98% of all threatened strikes are really about. Some of these videogames are so profitable that the actors feel their wages should be adjusted upwards, including some sort of royalties or bonus payments. The game producers don't want to share that wealth. Everything else can probably be settled if they can settle on The Money.

My sense is that the actors are pretty militant on this. SAG took some rotten deals in the past for voice actors and a lot of performers are determined to not let that happen again, especially in a work area which looks to be the main source of employment for decades to come. The companies will probably have to give more than they want to but the union may have to walk and continue walking for a time until that happens. As most new videogames spend a long time in the pipeline, consumers will probably not notice any lag in production for a long time…but there's too much profit on the line for the companies to gamble with more non-union amateurs than they now sometimes employ.

This will get settled. It just may take a while.

• Ah, the Donald Rumsfeld endorsement of Hillary seems to be a hoax. That's comforting.

• Donald Rumsfeld has endorsed Hillary. I thought she was a thousand times better than Trump but because of this, I may have to reconsider.

Here's an awesome bit of video — a musical number from The Steve Allen Show for February 9, 1958. Give it a look and then we'll discuss what you just saw…

Okay, first off: That was a four-minute song that was done, I'm fairly sure, live from the NBC Studios in Burbank. The singers are all lip-syncing to a pre-recorded track but they really do wander out of Studio 1, down through the scenery docks, then back around to Studio 1. Studio 1, by the way, is where Johnny Carson did his show for many, many years.

The number involves Steve Allen (who wrote the song they're singing), Ann Sothern, Steve Lawrence, Eydie Gorme, Dinah Shore and a man some probably thought was Frank Sinatra. It's actually a Sinatra impersonator…almost certainly Duke Hazlitt, who was then doing a Sinatra "tribute" act in Las Vegas.

But the real stars of the number were the director and the camera operators and crew. There were no lightweight TV cameras in those days and certainly no Steadicams. It also had to be a bitch to light this thing…and remember they had to get it in one take.

I'm guessing they had a real, real long cable on a camera and a whole bunch of guys who were pulling it taut so it never got into the shot while other crew members guided the cameraman backwards. From the shadows at the beginning and end, you can also see there was a cue card guy who was presumably walking backwards through the entire number…and probably a stage manager or choreographer who was pacing the entire thing. I have no idea what kind of speakers they had and how they were placed so the performers could hear the track.

But it's one camera, one take, no edits…not easy to do now, even more difficult to do back then. Hope you're as impressed as I am. (And by the way, I don't think this was a "first." I'm pretty sure Spike Jones had already done something like this a few times…and from the same studio.)

The real polls — as opposed to the ones Donald Trump sometimes cites — suggest a good chance of him going down to a smashing defeat. Now, let's acknowledge that it's possible the polls are wrong and also that it's possible that in the next three weeks, someone will come up with THE SHOCKING REVELATION THAT WILL FOREVER DESTROY HILLARY CLINTON AND PUT HER BEHIND BARS that right-wing sites have been promising their followers for a decade or two now.

But it's at least possible that analysts like Nate Silver who give Hillary a 90% chance of winning are right. I'm curious what they believe in those little rooms where Trump meets with his advisors. I understand him saying in public that the polls are bogus, the media is lying, the election is rigged, it's everyone's fault but mine. What do they really think in there?

They've decided not to campaign in certain states. Some reports (like this one) say they're giving up on Virginia, for instance. They have limited resources and using them to best advantage requires that they have a realistic assessment of where there's a chance and where there isn't. When this campaign started, Trump declared he would campaign in California and New York and would win them but he never meant that. His campaign gave up on them on the first day.

If you or I were running for President — and I'm not sure we both shouldn't have this time — we'd have a big chart or map of all the states and we'd mark off which ones we had in the bag, which ones we couldn't possibly win and which ones were worth fighting for. Every time something changed, we ask the question, "How do we get to 270?" But does Trump do that? I'm not saying he doesn't. I'm genuinely curious.

In 2012, Mitt Romney allowed a documentary crew to film in the suite as he awaited the results on Election Night, watching as he found out if he was going to become President of the United States or Walter Mondale. I'm not sure any other major candidate has ever allowed that and the Netflix documentary — it was called Mitt — showed why not. The clip I'm about to link to doesn't show you the full extent of despair and disappointment in that suite as Romney and his family came to see what the outcome would be.

Watching the full documentary, I felt like he really believed he would win and I thought, "I knew he wasn't going to win…why didn't he?" Or at least, why did he seem so unprepared for it? Was he surrounded with people who told him what he wanted to hear? Or what they thought he wanted to hear?

I suppose after the current election is over, several folks in the Trump campaign will write "tell-all" books in order to cash in and to give their explanations of why they weren't responsible for the mistakes. I'll be curious to see what they say was really on the candidate's mind…assuming something was. For now, here's the trailer for the documentary on Romney…

Well, I got through all of yesterday without posting anything about the election. Give me some credit for that.

Matt Taibbi has a good essay up on how Trump is the by-product of a lot of tensions in our political system and especially in the Republican Party. Here's my favorite paragraph from it…

The House speaker [Paul Ryan] had held a conference call with elected Republicans, telling them they were free to yank support from Trump if they thought it would help them win in November. This sounds like a good decision, until you consider that it's one he should have made the moment Trump sealed the nomination. As always, the Republicans acted far too late in disavowing vicious and disgusting behavior in their ranks. Then again, it's hard to keep the loons out when you're scraping to find people willing to sell rich-friendly policies to a broke population. The reaction among hard-line legislators was predictable: You're telling us now we can't be pigs?

Nate Silver says that Hillary's lead is pretty solid, though not to be taken for granted. Frankly, I'm getting more interested in the chances of the Democrats recapturing the Senate, which Silver currently pegs as a 65.2% chance.

Hey, if you know any Bernie Sanders supporters who are still hesitant about voting for Hillary Clinton, remind them of this: Right now, the best thing that could happen to advance the positions on which Sanders campaigned would be for the Democrats to control the Senate. That would install Bernie as the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, a very powerful perch indeed. He and President H. Clinton could work together to pass the proposals of his that she has adopted and if she didn't push for them, he'd have the clout to retaliate. It's unlikely the Democrats can take the Senate if Hillary doesn't take the presidency.

I'm not looking forward to the Wednesday debate and I suspect even people who pay to see mud wrestling are asking, "Does there have to be a third one?" I have no idea what Trump should do or will do except that those will probably be contradictory choices. I keep looking for areas of agreement with him and I found a partial one in this tweet this morning…

He's wrong of course that the media is rigging the election, unless you think it's rigging to give him a little more air time than his opponent instead of a lot more, like they used to do.  He's also wrong that the Alec Baldwin impression isn't good.  But "the boring and unfunny show"?  Hey, when the man's right, he's right.

And hasn't it been kind of interesting watching this election morph from a referendum on Immigration to a referendum on Women's Rights?  In a sense, those are the same issues because they're both about controlling the power of white male privilege…or even acknowledging that there is such a thing.

Twenty-two days until the election. One of the less-important annoyances I want to have be over is the use of the word "meltdown" to describe any slight displeasure or lack of a smile on the part of anyone running for office or speaking on behalf of someone running for office. Remember the scene in The Wizard of Oz where Dorothy threw water on the Wicked Witch? How about the scene in The Terminator where the titanium skeleton of the title character turned into molten metal? Those were meltdowns. What we're seeing identified as such these days are someone getting a little flustered or pissed. And lately, we all have good reasons to be flustered or pissed.

As some of you guessed, the lady in the Anacin commercial I featured here yesterday was Janet Waldo, the wonderful cartoon voice actress best known as the voice of Judy Jetson, Penelope Pitstop and so many others. I had seen that commercial 72,569,102 times (actual count) but until I saw it at Janet's memorial a few weeks ago, it hadn't dawned on me that was her. Janet did a fair amount of on-camera work over the years and she hated it. She was much more comfortable doing voiceovers in radio and later in commercials and animation. The commercial was a surprise to me. I guess I didn't expect to ever see sweet, lovely Janet losing her temper.

I suppose it says something about unemployment or the economy but in many large cities, areas have sprung up where almost anyone who can work up a neat-looking costume can hang around and pose for photos with tourists in exchange for tips. This reportedly goes on a lot in Times Square in New York and on Fremont Street in Las Vegas.

In Los Angeles, the main place is on Hollywood Boulevard near the famed Chinese Theater and the massive Hollywood-Highland entertainment center. Right now if I was broke, I could make myself a Batman costume, go up there every day and charge people five bucks — or whatever the market would bear — to take a selfie or snap with me.

As this article explains, there are those who don't like these street performers. They block traffic (some say) and there are occasional reports of fights or accidents or tourists who are somehow ripped-off for more than a modest tip. There is talk of limiting their presence or requiring permits or something. In Vegas, only a certain number are allowed at a time and they're confined to little painted areas on the street. Since in Vegas everything has to be some sort of gamble, the performers "win" certain assignments of time to certain areas via a lottery.

New York also limits them to certain areas. L.A. is still considering what, if anything, to do about them. At the moment, they are regulated but not limited.

Friday, for reasons too trivial even for this blog, I had to walk amongst them to get to somewhere I had to go. I've seen them while driving by — and it is kinda funny to spot a guy in a Spider-Man costume and someone dressed like a giant Elmo from Sesame Street waiting for a bus together. This was the first time I'd walked through the gantlet.

There wasn't a lot of diversity in costumes Friday. There were maybe twenty costumed folks wandering about and posing and around a third were ladies dressed as Catwoman. At least two were dressed and made-up as Marilyn Monroe in the white outfit she wore in famously in The Seven Year Itch. There was one ambitious homemade Minnie Mouse costume and a large, elaborate Transformer…and a half-dozen Spider-Mans.

Most of the Spider-Men wore store-bought costumes but there was at one guy who'd made his own — and not too well, I'm afraid. It looked good from afar but up close, it was pretty amateurish and unimpressive. In the comic book origin story, young Peter Parker — after being bitten by a radio-active spider and discovering it had given him awesome powers — sewed his own costume. I couldn't help but think that his probably looked about as unprofessional as the one this street performer had made for himself.

There were also a couple of street musicians, a few artists offering to do your caricature for a fee, and one sculptor who was ready to render your likeness in clay — also for a fee. MAD magazine artist Tom Richmond, who I know reads this blog, will no doubt be just thrilled (but unsurprised) to hear the following. All of these artists had samples of their handiwork posted to demonstrate the skill they offered. One of the caricaturists was demonstrating his by displaying a number of Tom Richmond drawings as if he'd done them. Not the first time I've seen Tom ripped-off like that.

If I were asked to vote on whether these folks should be banned, I have no idea how I'd vote. Here's a page where some Yelp! reviewers tell of their experiences and post some photos. The experiences are mostly negative but I suspect what would drive someone to post a Yelp! review would more likely be a negative encounter than a positive one.

There was something rather festive about the scene. A lot of tourists head for Hollywood Boulevard and are usually disappointed. It's not a glamorous place, you don't rub elbows with movie stars and there isn't that much to see or do. Clearly, a lot of people were happy the costumers were there.

One thing that struck me: Everyone was taking photos — of the costumed people, of the footprints in the Chinese Theater courtyard, of the stars embedded in the street, of each other. Years ago when I was up there, you saw a lot of cameras but now everyone had a smartphone out and was snapping like crazy. It was a little difficult to walk down the sidewalk because of all the bodies out there but it was impossible to get through without ruining a photo someone was attempting to take. I couldn't help but get in a number of folks' vacation pictures and videos.

The only unpleasantness I saw was that someone snapped a photo of one of the Catwomen without asking permission or offering a tip. She immediately turned on the photog and said, "That'll be five dollars!" The camera wielder didn't want to pay her the five dollars so he started apologizing and saying "I didn't know" and she berated him saying, "Hey, this is how we make our livings. Do you think we're out here for your pleasure?" I didn't see if he forked over any currency but I did notice children staring at Catwoman's apparent villainy.

As I said, L.A. is apparently deciding what to do about this. I have a hunch how it will end.

I'm thinking that one of these days, the folks over at Disney are going to decide that they're missing an opportunity for some free advertising. They'll hire some kids, dress them up as characters the studio is currently promoting, and send them out to Hollywood Boulevard to pass out discount ticket and pose — free! — with tourists. Other studios will follow suit and once there are folks out there in better costumes, not charging and also giving out freebees, the non-pros will not be able to compete and will vanish.

I don't think I like this ending. Corporate America can take the fun out of anything.