As usual, the letters quotient is double whenever Paul's name is mentioned, so here I go adding my petty opinion to the pile.

I do agree with Messr. Greenwald in that one of the greatest weaknesses of Democrats (or actually, their punditry and 'strategists') is that they are so easy to show up as hypocrites or narrow thinkers the abortion issue is just one of many, many, big issues that Democrats remain unable to formulate a coherent stand on.

However. What bother me about Paul on abortion is that he couches his support for pro-life policies as a states-rights issue. That sends shivers up my spine, for states rights have historically only been invoked when a party or group is trying to suppress the rights of another. One of the main reasons a strong federal government developed (and just in the past half century or so) was to create a unified center to protect the rights of minorities and disempowered people. African Americans come to mind first in this case, and so it is also instructive to remember that the first groups to hoist the state's rights flag high were segregationists who resented federal government attempts to liberate black people from Jim Crow.

This lesson should be instructive on other issues, as well, from gay rights to reproductive rights to muslim american rights. We do not live in the European Union, this is a nation, and our candidates should be respecting that. Where states and regions may be homogonenous and inherently prone to discrimination, our federal government is based instead on ideas of inclusion and diversity. Or at least that's what a few hemp-smoking white guys wrote down somewhere a couple of centuries ago.

Instead of sewing seeds of power regionally and catering to vocal minorities who seek to take rights from other groups, we should be unifying the federal government to defend the rigths of all Americans--including economic rights. If Paul were to add that perspective to his anti-war and anti-globalization rhetoric, he would certainly get my vote.

Debate is supposed to be taken care of in committee. The floor is indeed the last place for debate, because if the system is working, all of this has already taken place with the participation of the individuals in your party dealing with the bill. Anyone who has ever been to a community meeting can see why filibustering is such an effective time waster.

Chris Matthews noted this evening that Hillary Clinton was "winning" up until Iowa, and that now she was the underdog. Please. How can you be winning before there is even one freakin vote in the primary, and how can you be an underdog after losing one state. This sh*&T has really gotten out of hand. Its almost as if we, the audience, is eavesdropping on a private event on cable news.

At this point, it must be mortifying for the authors. Break the contract and risk the lawsuit, I say.

Elsewhere Glenn, you've written that polls are unreliable, and here you use on poll to prove your point. As much as I like polls when they go my way, I become more and more dubious about them for two simple reasons.

One: Until now--when there is actually a way to get a random sampling by doing exit polls at primaries--all regional polls, and all national polls, are conducted by phone. We are literally reading our national attitudes from a cross section of people who not only have lan lines, but are answering their phone without letting it go to voicemail first! With the plethora of debt collectors, marketers, charities and dead beat friends that harass the average person, what kind of ill-judging nutball picks up their phone without knowing who it is? And then actually talks to a complete stranger for ten minutes. Who has time for that kind of crap? Certainly, not anyone I'd agree on political matters with.

Second: Polls have become contests, where careers are made and races are won, in a virtual world with literally no connection to real life. Recently, Chris Matthews of Hardball argued that Clinton was the "front runner" and that she was "winning" until Iowa. The opposite could well have been true and its quite possible that mainstream attitudes toward the candidates have not changed a jot for the past year, and that Obama was always held in greater regard than Clinton. Who can know? That's exactly the point, and why we have elections and not phone polls with a one one-hundred thousandth sampling of the electorate.

On principle alone, we should simply stop using polls. But we should at least be consistent about our trust in them

Please. You'd be more likely to see a genuine act of emotion from a rutebega than a presidential candidate. The last thing we need is a litmus test on feminism when the first woman who ever came close to the office rode in on her husband's coat tails and would complete a two decade dual dynasty in executive administrations. Save your ire for constructive purposes that really affect attitudes towards women.