As Glenn points out, Ron Paul is bursting on the scene in part from his clear stance against the war and against "diplomacy" through military might. However, because he is a candidate in the Republican Party, his candidacy will serve Democrats in a wonderful way. The entrenched military-industrial complex will need to pull out all the stops to defeat him. Even though his remarkable fundraising in the name of Guy Fawkes did not reach the mainstream press, you can bet these folks know precisely how much money he raised and how many people signed on to the campaign.

I think that Paul's candidacy has the potential to force the Republicans to spend more than they ever have for the primary season and force them to fight one another more than they ever have. To me, a large part of the Republican successes of the 80's and 90's came from the Reagan Rule of speaking no ill of other Republicans and their ability to choose a candidate early in the process and then put everything behind a general election effort for that candidate. The longer Paul stays in the game, and the more money and support he attracts, the less the Republicans are able to achieve that status this year. (Throw in the Romney problem with some of the fundamentalists, and the problem I am discussing grows even larger).

Completing the inversion of the usual pattern, Clinton enjoys a large lead over her rivals in the primary races. However, I can imagine that the Republicans are dumbfounded that Democrats continue to debate issues and to support candidates other than the clear front-runner. To me, Paul's confounding of the Republican race allows further time for the Democrats to hone their message and either force Clinton into a better stance on issues like the war and the Constitution or even to allow her to be overtaken by a candidate more in line with the public's views on these vital issues.

The gist of all my rambling here is that I see the Paul phenomenon as a gift to Democrats because he focuses national attention on the war, but his extreme views on other issues prevent his becoming the actual nominee. If the Democrats focus their campaign on the war in the general election, many of those "naive" votes go their way.

Margalis said: Paul, Kucinich and Dodd. Those are the three in my view. Maybe Gravel too, honestly I don't know much about him.

Yes, I would put Gravel in there. He was absolutely heroic as a Senator when he read the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record to protect Ellsberg. His heroism increased when he was a one person filibuster to end the draft. He was at the rally for the antiwar march in Orlando on October 27 and he was full of energy in promoting civil liberties, impeachment and ending the war.

I think the value of these "unconventional" candidates, as several have pointed out on this thread, lies in their willingness to speak plainly to issues that are glaringly obvious to everyone outside the Beltway but are not permitted as thoughts belonging to anyone who is seen as "serious". Indeed, a major value of the Dodd days and now Guy Fawkes day is that a number of people who had been uninvolved are now truly thinking about the future of our country and are putting their money and efforts where their mouths are. Our country will benefit from this infusion of thought and energy.

That sentiment aside, and notwithstanding Glenn's admonition not to damn Paul by the company he keeps, I still am put off by some aspects of his candidacy. I have long been wary of "states rights" arguments as codespeak for racism. I've been reading the comments and still can't get past what I see as the history of this stance. When it is coupled with the 100% voting rating by the John Birch Society, I simply can't get past that. Okay, he may not belong to that group, but voting with their side 100% of the time is just too much for me. Furthermore, Paul's state is TEXAS. Can't get any more messed up than that unless you're here in Florida.

My personal vision of civil liberties is deeply aligned with the Constitution, but it also is intertwined with my desire for each person to be valued and to be treated equally and fairly under the law. A number of people have mentioned the need for the Federal Government today to act as a protector of the individual against the actions of corporations. I agree with that idea completely. Right now, corporations purchase the laws they want and individuals have no input on how that happens.

I simply don't see how a society moving in the direction advocated by Paul would protect the interests of individuals in the midst of the corporate oligarchy in which we now find ourselves.

Finally, my recollection of the Pam Spaulding posts on Obama is quite different. In fact, the third day on the topic was probably the only Greenwald thread I haven't read in three or four months. I found the comments the first two days to be shrill, hateful and aimed in all directions. Obama, gays, fundamentalists, the black church and the other Democratic contenders all were subjected to attack.

RMP,

ondelette and I are working on a project to generate action in the International Criminal Court on waterboarding. If you are interested in helping with PR on this, please email me. To contact a yahoo like me, add the Gainesville airport code after my name.