Cinton and Obama spend enormous amounts of time meeting with these corporate executives, trying to get them to raise money, etc. Is it fair to conclude, then, that they share the same agenda?

If it's not "fair to conclude" as such, it's certainly cause for concern and something that needs to be explored further.

As far as I'm concerned, corporate financing of campaigns has caused a great deal of the issues we have facing us today. Maybe they don't share the same agenda, but the likes of Hillary and Obama don't strike me as being afraid to push the agenda, especially in light of their ties to corporate America. Perhaps that's the issue.

Maybe what concerns people about segments of Paul's base is whether he would feel loyalty to them to push their agenda (at least in part), even if it differed from his. Isn't that a concern, even if he doesn't "share their agenda"?

Maybe it's not. Maybe he really is "what you see is what you get." But, his ties to those groups are relevant to some people when determining their support for him, or lack thereof. Sure, it's not as simple as guilt by association. It's more of a red flag indicating that the issue needs to be delved into.

Or, maybe it's as simple as voters thinking, "if white supremacists feel that Paul represents their interests, he probably doesn't represent mine." Fair? Maybe not. But, I don't think it's irrational.

Paul also wrote that although ""we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

Aside from the obvious offensiveness of his comments, this one strikes me as, if not stupid, then willfully obtuse. How could it not occur to him that perhaps African-Americans are disproportionately arrested and convicted because the justice system carries the same prejudices he does?

The statistics aren't hard to locate. The war on drugs, the death penalty - both administered unfairly and disproportionately to African-Americans. He didn't have time to look those up? Or didn't care to challenge his own beliefs? I'd be interested in what the later newsletters to only certain subscribers said. I would hope that Mr. Paul would be intellectually curious enough to take another look.

This, of course, doesn't change Glenn's central point in the main post. But, omooex's statement that, "You would have to explicity state these things in any examination of Ron Paul to get a fair portrait of him" is also undeniable, not just because of the racist undertones (or overtones?), but because of the demonstrated lack of critical thought.

Shooter's effort to ignore the confirmation hearings on the other hand is also understandable but only because shooter is a habitual liar and that's what liars do.

-- Paul Dirks

In addition, Glenn's post wasn't about Schumer or any of the Dems who voted FOR Mukasey. It was about the ones who both voted against him AND failed to filibuster or the ones who claimed to be anti-Mukasey, but couldn't be bothered to vote, much less filibuster. As in, "if they're going to vote no or claim that they disapprove, why not go whole hog and filibuster?" Here's what Glenn said:

Thus, at least 44 Senators claimed to oppose Mukasey's confirmation -- more than enough to prevent it via filibuster. So why didn't they filibuster, the way Senate Republicans have on virtually every measure this year which they wanted to defeat?

The only reference to Schumer was a parenthetical one in reference to the discussion about torture, not the vote or lack of filibuster.

Schumer's action is irrelevant to that argument, which is why, I suspect, the resident troll keeps bringing him up.

...about Ron Paul over the last few days, as these threads have caused me to do some independent research.

And, one thing has become abundantly clear: I would never vote for him. And, it's not because some of his supporters are obnoxious hypocrites who can't form a coherent argument (although several of those have shown up here lately). Pretty much all candidates can claim such supporters, I'm sure. I just don't agree with him on anything other than his stance on our current foreign policy issues. And, the things I disagree with him on are deal breakers. (For what it's worth, I'm not voting for Hillary, Obama or Edwards, either. I don't agree with any of them on most things, either. I don't know who I'm voting for, but Hillary's corporate donors and Obama's social security stance [to use two of Glenn's examples] sure haven't endeared them to me.)

I believe Glenn when he says he's not endorsing Paul (though I do understand why some could perceive things differently), and I hope that's the case, because I've come away convinced that Paul is not the guy for me.