In the 2008 primary season we were treated to a barrage of opinion pieces that proclaimed the inevitability of Hillary Clinton in her quest for the Democratic Nomination. Of course we have the advantageous position of historical high ground to see just how wrong all those predictions turned out to be.

Here it is 2014 and without the mid-term election yet resolved the opinion are flying fast and furious about 2016. Those opinions are as rooted in serious thought as the Fast and Furious films were dedicated to realistic physics. Naturally one of the most persistent memes is that Hillary is once again the inevitable Democratic Nominee for PotUS.

‘Inevitable’, you keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means. Hillary is no more ‘inevitable’ in her aspirations than any particular character is inevitably going to survive their encounter with George R.R. Martin’s bloody word processor.

It is certainly true that Hillary (It is no disrespect to refer her by her given name to prevent confusion with her equally famous spouse.) possesses tremendous advantages going into the fight; her name recognition, fund raising ability, a deep well of contact and connected supporters, all play an important part in a candidates odds of success, but other factors matter as well.

Hillary is a spectacularly poor campaigner. Like Mitt on the Republican side, she has actually won only a single electoral contest. She has displayed a gross inability to connect with voters, has a notoriously thin skin criticism, holds grudges with a tenacity unseen since Nixon, and has approached the nomination process, both in 2008 and 2016, as though it were a coronation.

None of this means she will not be the nominee. Just as Mitt was able to achieve victory in the Republican Primary field of 2012 she could pull it off, but I think it would take a similar dynamic.

Mitt faced a Party that did not trust him and was further to the right than what seemed his natural position. (Personally, I am not convinced we know what is Mitt’s true position. He was always the salesman and in a predominantly liberal state he played up the moderate and in a conservative primary he switched colors faster camera-equipped traffic light.) Hillary faces a party that is becoming more populist and more liberal while she herself has a difficult time selling that message. Mitt survived because there were plenty of not-Mitt candidates to split the vote, allowing the distrusted Romney to claim the Republican Iron Throne. Clinton would be best served by a pack of not-Hillary candidates who could split the more liberal voter of her party, allowing her a similar path to victory.

The rise of popular and decided liberal politicians such as Elizabeth Warren is a major threat to Hillary and only time will tell if she can survive and once again fail while being declared inevitable .

Well, following the recent Supreme Court decision, that’s the cry I keep seeing from the left side of my Facebook and Twitter feeds. As I understand it the Court found that it was unconstitutional to place limits on individuals when they contribute fund to political action groups and committees and the like. I am not terribly upset by the decision.  Of course there are great many others who are, however I am not swayed by their arguments.

On hand they seems to be saying that money buys politicians. Of course I think what they mean is that money buys the other dies’ politicians. I doubt that there is any level of campaign contribution that would induce Diane Feinstein to become pro-gun, for Elizabeth Warren to go lax on big finance.  There is  a tendency, which I try not to share, to believe that the politicians you support are good and virtuous people and those you oppose are corrupt scamps selling out their country, Virtue and vice exist across the spectrum.

A more substantial argument is that with massive amounts of money, an interest group can get ‘their man’ into office to bent the process to their will. On one level this is true, but it is equally true when you raise money for liberals or conservatives, you are using your money to influence the election to bring about the result you desire. The question seems to be is big money an overwhelming factor and determining who wins an election?

Well that depends on the election. Local city races, state reps, here where fewer people are engaged, the news is far less interested, money can be a big factor, but as the races get more national money is important for getting the message out it is far from determinative in respect as to who winds.

In 2012 Obama spent 683 million to Romney’s 433 million, so you might think Obama bought the election, but that just the candidate’s spending. The national parties also took part; Democratic spending was 292 million and the Republicans spent 386 million.  Outside group also threw money at the presidential race (these figure are just for the presidential contest, not the whole election cycle.) Liberal interests groups spent 131 mill massive outspent by conservative who threw 418 million trying to get their man into office and failed.

I believe that as long as the money flow is transparent, particularly in this age of information, it is far less corrupting than it used to be. This court decision isn’t costing me any sleep, but here’s some advice for those on the left.

You want more out of government? You want to see the obstruction stop? Four words are key, but I suspect the challenge will be to great for your team.

Get. Out. The. Vote.

Too often your team only fields a full force during Presidential elections, while on the right that have managed to energize and motivate their base to show up. And before you gripe that they do it with lies and distortions and slanderous personal attack, that does not matter. They get the warm bodies to the polls in off year elections. You gave them 2010, a redistricting year,  and you’ll feel that sting until 2020 and perhaps beyond.

It is easy to be partisan. You cheer your party when they are right, you denounce the other party when they are wrong, and you stay silent on the inverse.

Let publicly state a admiration on Senator Rand Paul’s old-style filibuster this week. Now there are lots of areas where I part ways with Senator Paul, but here he is a lot more right than he is wrong.

The administrations dodgy answers retaining the option for military drone strike on US soil is flat out wrong. American citizens on American soil get full Constitutional protections and rights. (I know that there are those who extend that world wide, but I do accept the frame work we are at war with Al Qaeda and that people who in effect ‘take up the enemy’s’ uniform can’t complain when they are fired upon on the battlefield. However, here at home, we more than have the resources to capture them without using Hellfire missiles fired from drones. Any US Citizen get full access to courts and full protections. (It is one of my chief bitches about the Bush 43 that he violated that and why he ranks for me as the worst US president.)

Some may ask, ‘So do you now regret voting for Obama?’

No. The use of drone on US soil is still a hypothetical, albeit a very troubling one, where the Republicans have yet to renounced Bush 43’s torture program and abuse of US Citizens, which are matters of record, not maybe of future abuses.
What Paul did was a true filibuster, not that travesty that gets used so much today of quiet paper filings against things you do not like.

For that Senator I salute you.