Today's guest contestant on the 'Not My Job' segment of the NPR game quiz show Wait, Wait...Don't Tell Me! is comic and author Ali Wong.  She has a very funny and even charming conversation with host Peter Sagal about her now-famous Netflix special which changed her career, in part for its bluntness performing when pregnant,

For this week's Al Franken podcast, he notes "I conclude that Trump is guilty, yes, guilty!, of high crimes and misdemeanors and so is AG Bill Barr after discussing facts with Harvard law professor Nancy Gertner and Max Bergmann (not a Harvard law professor) who make the case that assuming Trump will be acquitted in the Senate is a mistake."

First, a little background.  This isn't necessary to enjoy the main video, but it adds some fun perspective.  I posted this video previously -- it's a clip of Oscar-winner Eddie Redmayne on The Graham Norton Show talking about his audition as a young boy when he had a small role in London revival of Oliver!  ​That's Anna Kendrick also on the panel, who briefly comes into play here.

And now the main feature.

Every once in a while on his show, James Corden teams up with a guest, and they go out into the public and deliver singing telegrams.  For this, he joins with Eddie Redmayne  deliver singing telegrams.  That they did this three weeks ago, around when Redmayne's movie The Aeronauts about two balloonists was released, may have something to do with why balloons are involved, though perhaps not.  But I like to think so. 

(It's possible that two ads will interrupt the video, but if so you can just click past)

Yesterday, a new MSN poll was reported on the Senate trial, and it showed the public favoring conviction of Trump by a margin of 55%-40%.  I don’t put much credence in an single, standalone poll, but like to compare them to either others or what their own numbers have been in previous weeks.  Also, I don’t know the track record of the MSN poll.  But what I found noteworthy is not so much that their numbers on impeachment and conviction are so pronounced, but that a week ago their numbers were largely tied.  The thinking is that Republican action to block witnesses and hold a kangaroo court may be impacting public reaction.  Also, women voters seem to be deserting Trump in greater numbers, so that might be having an effect, as well.
 
On the heels of this I also saw the most recent Politico/Morning Consult poll on impeachment/conviction.  It’s not new, but from last Friday.  And they have the numbers 51% for – 42% against.   While not the same as that new MSN poll, the nine-point separation is certainly in the same ballpark, most-especially compared to the 48%-47% most polls had a week or so ago.
 
I have to think the more time that passes the more bad news will come out against, even if the bad news is just about the continued blocking by Republicans.  I base this on the profound unlikelihood that there will be any breaking "good news" for Trump about Ukraine.  And on the joint capabilities of Trump tweeting and Rudy Giuliani rambling being their own worst enemies, with at the very least a week to go before the House even sends over its Articles of Impeachment, and longer for a trial to start and both of those two fine fellows having nothing to do in the meantime.
 
That said, as long as the poll numbers for conviction are in the 50s, I think Senate Republicans will be able to ignore things.  I just get the sense that it would have to hit the 60s and Trump numbers would have to be in the mid-30s for them to react – and those markers will be hard to hit.  But not impossible.
 
What I still don’t know is how many Senate Republicans will vote for conviction.  I’m not even sure that Lisa Murkowski will, regardless of how “troubled” she is.  And I have no confidence in Mitt Romney.  I think more than most Republicans he's aching to vote "Yes," having been the one-time standard bearer for the party and having been humiliated by Trump when putting together his cabinet -- and he's in one of the safest seats in the Senate with five years to go on his term.  But Romney is also someone who talks a better game than acts on it.  So, the number of Republicans who vote to convict could be zero.  Or four.  Or – depending on what the polls are in January, more.  Or – who knows?
 
Having said that, if Susan Collins doesn’t vote for conviction, I’d make a bet that she loses her Senate race.  On the one hand, that almost makes her the most-likely Republican to vote Yes.  On the other hand, this is Collins – who knows?

Somewhat related to this, I was very glad to read yesterday that Democrats are planning to do something I’ve been expecting and wrote about here a few weeks back.  When Republicans were touting how “at risk” some House Democrats were in swing districts, I wrote that they’re ignoring how “at risk” Republicans are in their own swing districts.  And now there are stories about how the Democrats are going to be going after those!  I’m sure they’ve been planning this for a while – how could they not??

And now, the Senate has adjourned until December 30.  So, nothing to do for Trump.  And Giuliani.  Except play golf, tweet and give drunken interviews...

As you may know, this year is the 50th anniversary of Sesame Street.  This is a very nice behind-the-scenes tribute to the show that was done on 60 Minutes -- but no, not that 60 Minutes, but the one that they do down under in Australia.

So, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, mate.

I wanted to write this last week, but other issues and the holidays jumped ahead in line.  It came to mind after watching the Democratic debate.
 
I watched about an hour -- it was interesting enough, but I found a lot of repetition from having watched the other previous debates, and saw enough, figuring anything else of note that came up would be covered on the post-debate analysis.  But as time passed, by the next day, the more I thought about it, the angrier a particular section of what I saw made me.  The clip in question got shown a lot, so it's likely many, if not most people have seen it now, as well.  However I didn’t hear any commentary saying that the problem with it was the same as what I felt.  Other here may not either.  But for me, the issue has just grown.  It was when Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth -- and to a lesser degree, Bernie Sanders -- got snipping at each other over fund-raising in “wine caves.”
 
What bothered me at the time, and all the more as I kept thinking about and see the clip over and over, is that there are three goals to the 2020 election – 1) Beat Trump, 2) Beat Trump, and 3) Beat Trump.  And some of these Democrats, mainly Warren and Sanders at that debate, are trying to be SO freaking pure that they’re complaining about where someone legally raised money. 

To be clear, I'm a strong supporter of strict campaign finance laws.  And I love being on the side of the Angels.  And I think holding out with purity as the goal should be striven for. 

But -- 

This coming year, 2020 -- as long as it’s absolutely legal and without any fishy stretching of the limits, and as long as we have no evidence of a candidate being corrupted by it – with the three top goals "Beat Trump," then I think Democrats should try to raise as much money as they possibly can!!!! 

If a candidate is against holding these small, elite events and doesn't want to hold them, fine, don’t hold them.  But the three goals are all to Beat Trump, so don’t start ripping part the Democratic Party because of where someone else raised money.  It was legal, we know of no corruption, and it was money, and it counts as money.  We can all be pure in 2024.  But I’m absolutely fine with setting a high standard in the Democratic Party for fundraising that is legal and decent and fair and above board.  What I don’t need is climbing even higher on the mountain top for “pure” in 2020 against Trump.  To paraphrase the old saying – that’s bringing lace gossamer doilies to a gun fight.

I understand that undue corporate influence in politics is something to work to avoid.  And I understand that favoritism to those who can buy it is unfair.  What what I also understand that the absence of these standards is not corruption.  Acts of corruption are corruption.  Legal, decent and fair are uncommon, good standards in politics   And when the goal is to defeat someone using Russian assistance, and using voter suppression, and using improper gerrymandering, and using impeachable extortion against foreign governments, and throwing people off the voter rolls, and is taking children from their parents and putting those children in cages, and is aligning himself with foreign dictators and is siding with white supremacists and is running an administration which is the dictionary definition of fascism --

-- then as long as its legal and without corruption, I couldn't care less if someone holds a fundraiser in a wine cave.  Or wherever they're doing their fundraising.  It's legal.  And without corruption.

If the question is "But how do we know it's not corrupt?", the answer is that asking a question is not proof of something's existence.  If it was, if questioning something meant the answer was proven, then pretty much everything would be suspect.  And we would live in Conspiracy Believer's Heaven.  Actually, there's an even better answer:  We know something is corrupt when there are indications and evidence of it.  Holding a fundraiser in a wine cave is not a corrupt act -- it's done because, when you're raising money, there's a good chance that that's where you're going to find money.

I understand wanting the most noble candidates to be elected.  And I don't mean that facetiously, but seriously.  But being legal, decent and fair, but not "pure," is not being corrupt nor even underhanded or improper.  It's being legal, decent and fair.

And the goal in 2020 is not to rip apart the Democratic Party for a lack of purity.  The goal is three things -- 1) Beat Trump, 2) Beat Trump, and 3) Beat Trump.

For 2020 most especially, as long as it's legal, decent and fair, I couldn't care less less where a fundraiser is held.  I care that every legal, decent and fair action -- every one -- helps to Beat Trump.