The problem is in the relative sense of urgency. You can of course argue that the "solution" lies in presenting a complex debate thereby sensitizing the public.
That, however, takes time and focus as well a certain degree of trust in the democratic process under the given circumstances.

The video this comment bases on seems to point to the fact that the circumstances are probably not "ideal" to put it lightly.

R.P. is stuck (and I believe he knows that). He can not (or does not want to) muster the "charismatic appeal" of Palin, Bachman and the likes (political slang: "baby kissing" or "populism", whatever rocks your boat). That makes him so likeable for us but also utterly helpless in his candidacy.

It might not appear as such with the debate being so "flat", but he is running against some VERY clever people (or rather, VERY clever political advisors).

Boy, it would be awesome if time proves me wrong.

In reply to this comment by Lawdeedaw:
You call it the "problem" but isn't it the solution?

>> ^Mauru:

The problem with Ron Paul running as a presidential candidate would be that his ideologies are so radically different (not all good mind you) from the current political perspective in the US it would take a very well educated public to win the "undecided" voter.
i.e.: voters who actually vote on ideologies, campaign goals and what we would generally call reason instead of partisanship and cultural background.
The Republicans and mainstream media are well aware of that fact and while they secretly like RP to run as senator or basically any other position (even though they can't openly admit it) because he breaks traditional voting habits they would never boost him as a presidential candidate.
Sad but true. That's why there's all the smirking when he speaks. It's not because they fundamentally oppose his principles but because they believe that the level of debate R.P. as a candidate would require to succeed is unachievable (or perhaps undesirable) at America's cultural level