Glenn Greenwald has another must-read post in the ongoing debate about the ways in which Ron Paul may or may not be better than President Obama on particular issues and the subsequent mania which these ideas bring forth within many parts of the liberal blogosphere. Greenwald is kind enough to quote a passage from a recent post of mine on the subject (thanks Glenn!), but his additive points to the debate and responses to critics are compelling and helpful in fleshing out the ways in which approving talk of Paul by anti-war and pro-civil liberties activists has surfaced major tensions within the Democratic Party and its decreasing liberalism.

As I pointed out in my previous post on the subject, critics are deliberately ignoring what Greenwald is writing and representing his belief that Ron Paul is saying important things which aren’t being said by Obama or other Democratic politicians (and worse, beyond words, Obama’s deeds cut against liberal values on many of these issues). With that preface, here is a paragraph by Greenwald which I guarantee will be ignored by his critics, who will continue to say that Greenwald thinks civil liberties, surveillance, the drug war, etc are the most important issues facing America.

One final point that should be made: I do not believe that the issues on which I principally focus are objectively The Most Important Ones. There are many issues of vital importance that I write about rarely or almost never: climate change, tax policy, abortion, even the issue which affects me most personally: gay equality. None of us can write about every issue meaningfully. The issues on which I focus are ones where I believe I can contribute expertise, or express views and points not being heard elsewhere. But there are many other issues of genuine importance, and I have no objection to those who, when forced to choose, prioritize those concerns over the ones about which I write most frequently. That is why I wrote — and meant — that “there are all sorts of legitimate reasons for progressives to oppose Ron Paul’s candidacy on the whole” and “it’s perfectly rational and reasonable for progressives to decide that the evils of their candidate are outweighed by the evils of the GOP candidate, whether Ron Paul or anyone else.”

I haven’t looked yet, but I can only assume that within a matter of minutes someone will again accuse Greenwald of thinking racism, homophobia, or the destruction of social services is not important.