Originally Posted by Wonderment
Yes, so do the Paul voters who are probably going to win in Iowa and who could do quite well in New Hampshire.
The remarkable aspect of Paul's campaign is that he can get on a national stage toe-to-toe with some of the country's major warists and say that the war in Iraq was a "waste" and that we should be dismantling US bases all over the world, and if nothing else, make the Republican establishment shut up for a minute and listen to him. Watching them smirk and fume (and get fewer votes than Paul) has been one of the few real pleasures of the Republican debates.
Paul also empowers Dem. peace activists. We, who support Dem. candidates like Obama, can go to our elected officials and shame them into acting half as peacefully as Ron Paul, Republican.
I wish the last part of your statement was actually true. In reality, very few people actually do this. Anti-war protesters seem to be a lot more partisan than they'd like to admit. Obviously the wars are drawing down, and that's part of the reason we've seen less protests. But it's still been remarkable to see the lack of anti-war protesting directed towards Barack Obama considering the continuation of Afghanistan, and the general continuity in foreign policy. I'm not accusing you of this Wonderment; I know you've been a consistent critic of Obama's foreign policy. But sadly, it seems like a lot of people were more interested in protesting George Bush than protesting an actual policy.