Although I am very familiar with Paul's message, it's fascinating that the article spends almost no time at all enabling Paul to outline what his core message really is. Our media is so driven to explore the personality and odds making aspect of elections that the real important message defining component of journalism has been lost or at best, overlooked. It would be fascinating to see Salon do in depth interviews with each candidate on a host of issues like big government vs. small, more federal or state power, the role of the federal government, who should provide health care, how much taxation is enough, war and who really has the authority to start them, the role of religion in government, the best way to improve education to or poorest citizens, how to truly reduce inner city crime, the war on drugs, how terrorism is generated and reduced, our relationship with China, Russia, Europe, Africa, S.A. I mean do some in depth interviewing and then do some summary pieces that contrast positions that don't allow for any attacking of the other candidate. Simply find out what each candidate is for ... how they would solve the problem ... how they would consolidate support ... how they really see it. Don't let them box all their answers into short talking points, but go beyond it and then write penetrating issue oriented pieces that show these contrasts. Now that would be powerful.

MSLKauai

Can anyone outline for me what makes HRC qualified to be the most powerful person in the world? Does being married to the CEO of General Electric or Ford Motors make you the best choice to succeed him/her? Does being married to an Astronaut make you the best choice for the next space mission? Does being married to the head coach of the Dallas Cowboys make you qualified to follow him? If not, then why does being married to the President, a job significantly more difficult than any of those mentioned above, make you qualified to follow him in the job? It's ridiculous. She got elected to the Senate because of his star power, and that's IT! For you antiwar dems, she got the only vote she cast that really matters WRONG! She had 8 years of access to intelligence, which is 7 years more than GW, and SHE GOT THE VOTE WRONG!!! And, the fact that she keeps sending Bill out there to her trouble spots is more proof that she's simply not up to the task. Then, she got the IRAN VOTE WRONG!!!!!! She probably is hard working, but so is the guy that cleans my pool and the woman that does my taxes and the professor that teaches my kids. Hard working is not a credential to be President ... She talks a good game but when you really look at it, Hillary Clinton is where she is because of Bill Clinton and that's an undeniable fact. She is a celebrity-candidate for a party that is too frightened to vote with their heart (Edwards or Kucinich). She will lead from a defensive position which is exactly what she’s done as a senator. She has no vision, just desire to be president. As president, you don’t create great results because you “work hard” you create great results because you inspire the nation to get behind your vision and then know how to get both sides to agree on a path. Do you really think Hillary can get the GOP to agree with her on anything? If not, she’s not what we need in 2009. We are familiar with her, but that’s not the same thing as having experience and the Clintons have said the word “experience” so many times, they’ve snowed everyone into believing it. FAMILIARITY is not the same thing as EXPERIENCE. Richardson and Biden are the experienced candidates that could win.