The Case for Ron Paul: [Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com]: “Perhaps most importantly, Paul is the only serious candidate aggressively challenging America's addiction to ruling the world through superior military force and acting as an empire -- not by contesting specific policies (such as the Iraq War) but by calling into question the unexamined root premises of these policies, the ideology that is defining our role in the world.”
Concurring Opinion: [Ross Douthat, The Atlantic]: “I suspect that if the Democrats take the White House, certain elements in the GOP will rediscover their 1990s-vintage fealty to a Quincy Adams foreign policy, but for now at least Paul’s positions are at once popular enough for him to run a well-funded campaign and almost completely unrepresented in the mainstream of either party.”
Dissenting Opinion: [Melissa McEwan, Shakesville]: “[Am I the only person] who cannot abide the unqualified statement that Ron Paul is such an awesome advocate for civil rights and personal freedom, or even that his is a coherent, consistent, and/or principled ideology, when he is virulently anti-choice? … There is absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing, even remotely consistent about claiming a passionate support for personal freedoms and being simultaneously anti-choice.”
Unintended Beneficiary: [Brian Beutler, Brian Beutler]: “Since ‘going negative’ has regularly proven to be perhaps the most reliable political tool politicians have available to them, I wouldn't be surprised at all if a sustained attack on Hillary Clinton ultimately caused her to drop in the polls. Perhaps even significantly. But that's just the thing. In this race, a Hillary slide doesn't necessarily correspond to an increase in relative support for John Edwards. Because there's still that Barack Obama guy out there for people to support.”
--Ben Crair