He really isn't though. The fact that Paul actually knows what he is talking about and can give a straight answer gives him an edge in the debates. Fox News especially tried to smear him with set up questions during the debates and he just pwned them every time. It might not be charisma or looks but he has something that just makes people like him and trust him (probably actually BEING trustworthy and genuine just shines through), and that's what you need against a failed president that lied on every single issue last year just to get elected. Obama broke almost every single promise he made and a lot of people will remember his "bringing the troops home," "transparent government where every bill will be available to the public 5 days before it passes," and "bringing back jobs" never happened.

that's like quoting the youtube clip of the woman going "OMG, OBAMA WILL TAKE CARE OF US. HE'LL PAY FOR MY CAR, MY HOUSE, THANK GOD!!" and saying "this answers the question 'why are obama fans delusional?'"

Hoopman,

my point was Phill was prob half-joking (such a kidder that one). Thank you for your public service to the lurkers though I guess?

no it would be like quoting the comments on any 2007-2008 obama youtube video. His supporters were naive, absurdly unrealistic, kinda dumb, and way arrogant about the superiority of their candidate.....now that I put it that way, actually not much different than your average ron paul supporter.

"he will end the iraq war" (lol), "finally someone for gay rights" (lol), "universal healthcare!!!!!!" (lol), "HOPE AND CHANGE" (lol)

lot of arrogance above.

Mostly just wanted to say that I think there's a lot of grossly distorted vides of Obama voters too. (though probably right on if you limit it to people who post comments on youtube videos as the partisans on either side aren't exactly the cream of the crop.)

That beings said: Obama, like him or not, probably was the superior candidate. (that doesn't have to mean much)

I don't think most intelligent people on either side thought any candidate could end the Iraq War quickly or easily. What would have been more important is to not start the war.

He's better for gay rights then any Republican. There's no questioning that.

Universal Healthcare - He's taken the country closer then any president so far and certainly done more then any Republican candidate.

Hope and Change was certainly a largely empty slogan.

All in all, I think Obama is a big disappointment. Though if we went back in time knowing everything we know now, If my only two choices are Obama vs. McCain... its still Obama.

And, however much I don't like Obama, if my only two choices are Obama or the majority of the current GOP crop - Obama is still the better choice.

Monthly casualties in Iraq are like 10% of what they were in 2007-8. I mean, we still have way more troops there than we should, and troop numbers and casualties in Afghanistan have risen correspondingly, but you can't say Obama's just kept plugging away with the Bush strategy in Iraq.

When are slogans ever not empty?

I can't tell if this is a level or not, but wasn't Kristol the one who picked Palin?

"we just want an up or down vote" > "cramming it down our throats" (via an up or down vote, lol) > "doesn't respect political processes!"

wonder what's next

Don't know if this has been posted, but damn does Perry crush the 65+ crowd and the South. He has a 4:3 lead over all other candidates combined in those demographics.

Not a level, he prefers a Rubio/Ryan ticket. Here is his latest comments on Palin:

Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol was among Sarah Palin's earliest Washington admirers, and helped bring her to the national stage, but he said this week that while he still admires her, he questions her choices and doesn't think she should be the Republican nominee for president.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...e_nominee.html

You mean he crushes among Depression-baby boom born white fundamentalists who yearn for school prayer, no abortion, and segregation?
I mean there is like no way they make up a deciding portion of the Republican base is there?

Its noteworthy when they are pro choice. Being pro life is a default Republican trait. As is not believing in evolution i guess, but when you set yourself up as an educated politician not believing in science is hilarious and needed adding.

The list was mostly what he would be attacked on, and by attacked they would ask his opinions and lol.

Obama followed most of his promises. Its a myth he was going to withdraw troops faster than he is now, he talked about healthcare reform and got through the best he could and he couldnt close gitmo the way congress was obstructing it.

But to go back to Paul, you misunderstand how the debate will go with what him being tripped up looks like. He has been delivering the same message for years so of course he is well practiced, but his message for the most part just doesnt have widespread support. The first debate i saw he got some cheers as he had a lot of fans there, but the second debate he was being booed for his views on security. While his "stop wars" message would play to a certain segment that is with Obama by default the rest of what he talks about would put them off.

He is the worst kind of candidate, if you pick six views he will have somewhat extreme views on all six but they swing across the entire spectrum so while he might connect with everyone with one or two of the views the other four or five views will miss the mark.

I think there's a lot of truth to this. I talk a lot about Paul to my political oriented friends. (All of who would tend to vote to the left)

They all see much to admire and respect about Paul but get hung up on one extreme view or another.

For instance- one friend things that Paul has integrity, likes his stance on things like the war on drugs, more freedoms, no pork, his consistency and sincerity, etc. Yet, while they admire much and agree with much they aren't libertarians who want to get rid of all govt. programs. He didn't like for instance RP's attack on FEMA.

I would argue that many like the general direction RP is going but think there's a middle ground where Govt. can be useful in certain areas and better for the public then the free market.

Christie/Romney/Huntsman/Rudy...please somehow win the Rep nomination since who ever does is taking the presidency.

Whenever there is that 1 "hangup" issue, I always ask the person what their #1 biggest priority is. Economy, wars, drugs? If they agree w/ Paul on that, move on to #2, etc., and find out how far down the list it really is and, in the grand scheme of things, how little it means to differ in viewpoints on that topic. Also compare those top things to the other candidates/Obama.