I wasn't nitpicking. On the contrary, I was agreeing to your comments and elaborating a bit. But the written word doesn't always convey intentions well.
As for Dr. Paul, I'm sure his supporters believed him to be a serious candidate. But immediately after the Iowa straw poll (where Paul came in second) the talking heads did all they could to totally ignore him and more importantly, do discuss WHY he came in second. Personality-wise, he comes across as a shaky elderly gent. But when you look at what he stands for and believes in those qualities deserved to be presented and discussed. Not blown-off by folks who think the Constitution was written over 200 years ago, and can be supported or ignored at their convenience.