The real question that the Ron Paul candidacy poses for Democrats

[MH1]

72. I think you are incorrect - or at best, broad-brush stereotyping

in the motives you assign to 'uncritical defenders of Obama' etc.

You claim:

"I submit this is why Paul inspires such exceptional rage among the uncritical defenders of Obama and the Democratic establishment."

Not being quite an 'uncritical defender of Obama and the Democratic establishment' myself, but probably so characterized by the anti-Obama faction here (because I find a lot of the criticism here - not all - over-the-top, and/or false, and frequently not at all 'constructive'), let me point out another possible motive for us to be exceptionally angry at Ron Paul's candidacy:

Because he is SO GOOD at manipulating vulnerable, shallow-thinking idiots into following him; but mostly because he manages to suck in otherwise intelligent-seeming people. Because we have met people who seem to lose ALL reason when you try to discuss Ron Paul's actual positions with them. Case in point: one particular Paulite I know, calls himself an environmentalist, and is active in environmental causes. He's otherwise a nice guy who seems to care about the world. But somehow the Paulites have brainwashed him, and it is impossible to have a rational discussion about what a Ron Paul presidency would mean for the environment.

I mean, c'mon, someone who cares about the environment, supporting Ron Paul?? What. The. Fuck. How separated from reality does someone have to be for that to compute? How in the world would running this country on a libertarian model (particularly pro-business libertarian) help the environment? The air and water don't recognize state boundaries. Free-rider and race-to-the-bottom would be the rule. I could go on and on but hopefully my point is clear.

So while your assertion may be true for some, it is not true for the entire range of 'Obama defenders' as your OP seems to be suggesting.

I would also suggest that the rage stems partly from the concept that the two things he is arguably, sort of, right about, are NOT even remotely the only issues that liberals should be concerned about. Those two areas DO NOT represent the whole spectrum of "progressive values", let alone LIBERAL values. Some people praise Paul as if those two areas ARE the only ones that matter. To me and my 'ilk', they are not, and it does sometimes raise the blood pressure when people treat it like it is. (Also, I think Paul is total b.s. on the war issue. He voted to invade Afghanistan, right? So he has hardly any leg to stand on. And I am not in favor of complete isolationism, as he is. As to the drug war, I feel about it like I do the death penalty - I would dearly love to have a candidate who was on the correct side of the issue, but it's hardly my highest priority, and therefore not a litmus test).