Basically zero chance.

I wish they had posted a pic of Paul. He isn't as rock-bottom ugly as Giuliani (or Thompson).

Ron Paul can't be categorized and represented by their simple soundbites and exploding graphics flying across the screen, so Fox News pretends he doesn't exist.

Much easier (and less dangerous) than actually trying to discuss the man and what he stands for.

So they left off the pic of KKK racist Ron Paul. It doesn't really matter. Five losers or six.

This dark cloud of Republican rule for the last seven years is coming ever so slowly to a close. None of the Republican candidates is worth a damn. They are going down in November.

Ron Paul clearly has a much more viable campaign than Giuliani and Thompson and a burgeoning campaign while McCain's is tanking. But, as I've said before, I hope Romney never leaves; I love watching a fraud piss away his money. And I hope Thompson never leaves; he's just too damn funny.

Check out "The Thompson Files, the early years:"

http://letters.salon.com/562abdebe39553a2d62ab8ec732a186d/author/index4.html

What's the difference between what Fox has done to Paul and what MSNBC did to Kucinich? And where is Keith Olberman on that?

It took me about 30 seconds to go to CNN (the Clinton News Network) and find this page, featuring the dandy color pic of the whole Democrat field. All of them. Clinton, Edwards, BarackHussainObama and Dennis Kucini- WAIT A MINUTE! CNN left Dennis Kucinich on the cutting room floor! Get me Dennis Kucinich's agent on the phone, chop-chop!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/15/democrat.debate.ap/index.html

Tim, you're going to hop on this story right away, aren't you? CNN's manipulation of election images to eliminate Cleveland's left-wing boy mayor?

Paul is actually getting a significant amount of votes. Nearly as many as Guillosilini and way more than Thompson. Kucinich has proven in his earlier runs for president that he isn't viable. While CNN is not putting up a picture on Kucinich, they also aren't putting up a picture of Gravel.

That got old and stale about 15 years ago.

I'm fascinated by the corporate mainstream media's gatekeeper role it's given itself in this whole process, like how it decides serious from unserious candidates, even when big-name candidates aren't doing well, bypassing lesser-known candidates who are at least doing as well as the some of the big names. It's nice to see them out themselves in this effort, our neutral and objective "free" press.

I only say "Chicken and Egg argument".

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

Lest anyone accuse me of somehow cherry-picking a photo from the the Vegas Democrat debate, where Kucinich was uninvited...

Elephant - the point, which you seem to have missed, is that Fox clearly lists the candidates in order of delegates, and skip over #5 in favor of #6.

I don't like people ignoring Kucinich, but shaving off the bottom candidate(s) is different from skipping over one candidate in favor of someone even lower.

But somebody obsessed with Obama's middle name is probably a Fox zombie anyway, so why am I bothering to explain this?

FOX will be kicking and screaming when they finally let go of their goldenboy Rudy, who clearly is going nowhere in this thing. On the other hand, Ron never existed in their radar.

Ron Paul hasn't a chance in Hell of getting the nomination, either with or without Fox's help.

He's a conservative, and there is no room for conservatives in the Republican party.

Because the mainstream media wants us to choose from their sock puppets? How about something resembling actual change this time around? Like a return to Constitutional government?

Why is this funny? I am not getting the joke.

If you look at the saved screen shot that Tim Grieve posted, you see that the "listing" of the candidates' delegate count DOES include Ron Paul and his delegates. Both of them.

And, with regard to the photo montage, those candidates are not "listed" in an order at all; not in order of delegates, or alphabetical, or anything else as far as I can see. (Are they arranged in order of national polling? I don't know. Probably not, as far as I can tell. The safest bet is that they were arranged in no particular order at all, but were just nice representative photos.)

Sorry to burst the Fox-as-evil-empire balloon, but that's the way it is.

Now, a question for the Salon readership. Do you feel that Ron Paul would be a good choice for President? Is he a solid candidate with good ideas? Or, do you want to see Ron Paul get lots of attention for as long as it takes to weaken the GOP frontrunners and thereby lend an advantage to the liberal Democrats?

Honestly, I wonder why any of you would care about what Fox says or does. Still, I suppose I can understand, because I have some of the same feelings when the New York Times runs one profile after another of Mike Huckabee. I tend to think that Huckabee is the GOP opponent that the Times lusts for, and not because the Times would ever support Huckabee in an election for dogcatcher.

Also, did you notice that giuliani is pictured first? Not bad positioning for a guy who just pulled

3% of the smallish vote in the Michigan Primary. Good old Faux News. What a bunch of clowns...

..what part of 'briefly' don't you understand?

Here's a free tip: If you're going to accuse someone of getting their facts wrong, it helps keep the egg off your face if you read the article you're criticizing carefully to make sure you're not the one who's got it wrong.

Or, do you want to see Ron Paul get lots of attention for as long as it takes to weaken the GOP frontrunners and thereby lend an advantage to the liberal Democrats?

There are liberals in the Democratic field?!? Tell me who they are, because I'd like to vote for a liberal.