[...] Paul, as you might recall, has demonstrated questionable judgment on matters relating to racism before. Perhaps that’s why he was so quick to send in the damage control teams this [...]

Looks like the current Paulian excuse — someone else wrote it, not me — is
entirely different than the 1996 Paulian excuse, which was “I wrote it, but you are taking it out of context, and saying that 95% of blacks in a city are criminal is not so bad.”

I’m not as optismistic as Patrick regarding Obama’s chances in gutting it out, though I still hope he will. I’m of the mind that the “Democratic Machine” will go full bore for Hillary. IMO, Edwards needs to bow out and back Obama. Too bad that will never happen.

Patrick: why particularly? I feel like Clinton will grind this out. I’ve got no real reason for this belief – it’s very early and NH aside, Clinton has stumbled out of the gate. I think Obama is probably a superior choice, and that this belief is why it will be Clinton, and merely the latest in a series of punishments from some sort of unfathomable cosmic entity I offended once.

Now, a ghost writer can write a Christmas greeting just as easily as a political screed. But at least this ghostwriter had a good feel for the Ron Paul style, inasmuch as it’s the only Christmas greeting I’ve recently seen with an explicit reference to the Trilateralists.

I think I feel dirty.

For “great aunt” you could just substitute “most of the people Peacedog knows”, though. I think I’m getting bitter.

You’re speaking of him as though Paul was ever a serious candidate, anything but a fringe spoiler. Paul has, for me, never been about anything but comedy and protesting The Man. Saying that anything makes him look bad is like saying that Gus Hall’s apologetics for Stalin reflect poorly on his political judgment.

The comments are more entertaining than the article, frankly. The horde of Ron Paul flying monkeys is out in force, calling this a smear job and everyone else tools of the liberal mainstream media.

Paul’s defense is amazing — he’s basically saying that yes, there were various “Ron Paul Newsletter” publications, but he didn’t review them or edit them. That may excuse him from responsibility for the actual sentiments. But it shows extremely questionable judgment, particularly in the crucial leadership fields of selection and supervision of underlings. Being President is partly about what you do, but mostly about selecting and managing smart and decent people to do stuff in your name. The fact that Paul selected such a freak to write a newsletter in his name — or, at the most charitable, allowed somebody about whom he knew nothing to write a newsletter in his name — reflects very badly on him, I think.

Patrick, moving on to your predictions, I think Obama vs. McCain is as good a guess as any. I agree that McCain is more “qualified,” in the sense that he has more experience doing things that we traditionally see as qualifications for the office. I don’t know that would make him the best President. Increasingly I think what a President needs is the ability (and willingness) to choose and manage the right people and convincingly convey the right messages — in other words, lead. That’s not to say I’m gaga for Obama. But he has at least some of those qualities.

I agree that Paul could be a spoiler for the Republicans in a race, rather like Nader was for Gore. I think a McCain vs. Obama race would be interesting. McCain has a tendency to say what he thinks, occasionally in a hey-you-kids-get-off-my-lawn manner, which is entertaining. In the last week Obama has shown good skills in being unflappable and parrying attacks and offering clever ripostes. Others have said this first and better: the Republicans are going to be careful that it doesn’t get turned into a contest between the crotchety old guy and the charismatic but calm young guy.