First, they have a hit piece on RP with a headline of “Ron Paul’s pointless Internet presidency” (which is ironic because Yahoo! is a pointless Internet company), but they have this:
Oh, come on! Soldiers have been murdering Afghanis for years and the article doesn’t even mention RP.
That is overly harsh. I would say that the author is trying to gain traffic more than any thing else. I have not read the article at this point but that would be my first impression. A hit piece to gain traffic so that she can keep her job?
It is actually quite embarrassing to read because it gives such a clear picture of her political view of reality.
Ron Paul has been in politics before the internet and he even ran for president before the internet even existed. To try and say that he is an internet candidate and in such a way is ridiculous. Sure he can thank his recent popularity for the internet but then other candidates are free to use the new medium as well. He does not have any power over the internet it is just a free medium. The mainstream media on the other hand, candidates have a clear power of them, so in this regard the internet is not realy something you cay is just a fad. It is more real than the public brainwashed by the mainstream media.
In summary her article basically tries to undermine Ron Paul by making ridiculous claims about the internet and marginalizing his views with petty insults.