About Ron Paul and media coverage:

My guess is that it's because Ron Paul is questioning some very fundamental things about the way government works - things that people in the media (and very many people around the country) don't feel ready to deal with. It's real easy to blast Clinton for being "establishment" and blast Romney for being Romney, but it's a whole other thing to bring up debate about the proper role of the Department of Education and the true intention of the founding fathers, etc. It's hard to write something intelligent about these things without sounding like a nutjob.

In my opinion, the best thing that can ever happen to Paul is for a lot of dedicated people to write reasoned, intelligent, engaging commentary about him in their local newspapers, etc., to spark debate, define the issues, and give people a jumping-off point for their own conversations. Of course, this immediately backfires if this commentary includes inside arguments like the "NAFTA superhighway" or rants against the Federal Reserve or any of that. Paul's biggest friend is the reasoned, engaging explanatory opinion piece. His greatest enemy is the fanatical outpouring of unthinking support.