Your linked article has some merit, it isn't something to dismiss out-of-hand. However, there's a significant flaw in it, where he discusses how Obama was excus

Your linked article has some merit, it isn't something to dismiss out-of-hand. However, there's a significant flaw in it, where he discusses how Obama was excused but Paul isn't: Obama did it with Jeremiah Wright, openly grappling with the past toxic association, owning it, explaining it. Paul has not had the wherewithal or presence of mind to do that. Indeed, he has not even named the association, the first step to disowning it. But this is false, he did address it four years ago. I've linked and quoted that statement below. [1] Also, Sullivan goes on to say "And unlike Obama with Wright, Paul got money from these newsletters." You'll have to make your own value judgments here, but I think Obama comes out worse. It's true that Paul profited. However, it seems clear to me that Obama's relationship with the real perpetrator (Wright, in his case) was far closer than Paul's. Obama chose Wright to baptize his daughters, and used Wright's ideas for the title of his book The Audacity of Hope. This make me believe that Obama had a close, respectful relationship with Wright, and that some of Wrights ideas molded Obama's own. None of these things can be said of Ron Paul with respect to those newsletters. [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/08/idUS233377+08-Jan-2008+BW20080108 http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/08/idUS233377+08-Jan-... "The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. "In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.' "This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary. "When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."