Just one columnist, not necessarily HuffPo as a whole.
I read the article 30 minutes ago and wondered "how long before this is on the Forum?". Answer, of course, long beforehand.
The article is horrible regardless how one feels about Paul. It spends more than the first half engaging in meandering pointless philosophical drivel before even attempting to actually analyze the political terrain of Paul's candidacy--spending a whopping
one paragraph in the entire article doing so. And even that single paragraph:
First, and most directly, he does extremely well in polls. The organization of his grassroots support is not just excellent; it is remarkable, by historic and global measures. His ability to raise money from actual voters is second to none.
His appeal to independents and swing voters is an order of magnitude greater than that of his competitors. Secondarily, he has more support from military personnel than all other candidates put together, if measured by donations; he has the most consistent voting record; he has the magical quality of not coming off as a politician; he oozes integrity and authenticity, and,
as far as we know, he has a personal life and marriage that reflects deep stability and commitment.Combines unadulterated bs (bolded) with pure
(italicized)
Hell,
I could make a better argument for Paul's chances than this tripe, and this author even had the advantage of believing it could happen.
