The first requirement for winning a nationwide campaign for political office, is you must be a politician.
A small off-hand quote by Ron Paul may have made his bid for the white house a bit more difficult.  When Paul quoted Sinclair Lewis, 'When fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.' He may have inadvertently alienated a large base of the Republican party, and a smaller, but important independent group. 
This is a perfect example of why long-shots tend to be, well, long-shots.  Dr. Paul was doing quite well raising money on a libertarian message that appealed to both Republicans and Democrats.  He showed great character by not changing his positions with the polls, and speaking directly to the voters.  So why bring religion in to it?  Especially with a quote that could (and will be) used by same to paint him as anti-Christian?  Ron Paul is certainly not against Christianity or any other organized religion.  No, this is not a sign of religious intolerance, it is a sign of poor campaigning. 
Ardent supporters will say the this is the essence of Ron Paul. He is not a politician, that is why he is so appealing.  While not being a politician may be a great character trait, it isn't going to help you win political elections.  One need not glad hand every person he meets, like a Bill Clinton, but he should be politically savvy enough to avoid stepping in the quicksand.  All of the candidates will make mistakes.  The real politicians will generally avoid making mistakes that alienate a large block of their party.  It really is as simple as this, if you're going to run for political office, you have to be a politician. During a campaign, you must bite your tongue from time to time, and you'll need to be vague on some issues.
We see a similar fault in Fred Thompson's campaign.  Check out this piece from Roger Simon at the politico.com .
Both of these guys are struggling with the same problem, they simply don't want to be politicians.  Sadly for their supporters, politicians win elections.
The internet and the speed and breadth at which information can reach the masses has certainly given a boost to long shot candidates, and made races tighter.  More available information allows voters more of an opportunity to identify with a specific candidate. This wealth of information gives the supporter the impression that he has found the perfect candidate.  This "custom fit" candidate then enjoys ardent support. 
But if it is easier to build a strong base, it is just as easy to lose broad based support.  Two percent of the voters supporting your campaign fanatically is a great starting point, but it isn't enough.
So what is this new paradigm for presidential campaigning?
The old way was the Nixonian, run as hard to the right as you can during the primaries, and the run back to the middle during the election.  With explosion of information and the volatility in the shortened primary season the new paradigm is this: In the early (the earlier the better) stages of the primary, stick to your positions on a few issues to build your strong base.  Then expand to gobble up the majority within your party as it unfolds.  This has never been more clear (or easier to do) than it should have been this election cycle. Especially for Ron Paul.  Once he saw the masses in the Republican party going to Huckabee, he simply had to co-opt Huckabee's rhetoric to appeal to the social conservatives.   "But Ron Paul is  a libertarian Republican" you say.  "How can he  all of a sudden become a  Christian social conservative?"
Excellent question.  The candidate (Ron Paul in this case) needs to do the heavy lifting of digging beneath the surface of the wants and desires of the Christian conservative. What are the primary issues, that drive them to support Huckabee?  Is it the securalizing of Christmas? Then come out in support of communities putting up Christmas trees, and nativity scenes.    Is it gay marriage?  Then build a platform that allows for civil unions but doesn't include the word "marriage".  The way to expand your support to the broader base need not entail a sacrificing of a candidate's core beliefs.  But it does require the candidate to look within himself and see where he and the block of voters agree.  Then put that position at the top of the agenda to grab that support.
The web paradigm, Fred Thompson and Joe Biden.
I put these two candidates together because the both face the same problem, but for perhaps different reasons.  Thompson doesn't like the glad handing and chicken dinners.  He has been called lazy, which I think is just lazy journalism.  The cold hard fact is that some people just don't like pressing the flesh.  A small town southerner like Fred Thompson, is perhaps the least likely person to desire wandering down main street from coffee shop to coffee shop making small talk with people he has never met.  The end result is that Thompson hasn't been able to get much of a message out. Biden on the other hand is having the same problem for different reasons.   If we look at the Democratic party campaign right now one thing should be crystal clear, the top of the heap is built on a huge house of cards.  Hillary Clinton has performed just atrociusly in the debates, many in her own party wonder if she can win a national election and the only place to go would appear to be down.  Barack Obama does have an experience problem.  There is no other way to look at it.  He gives a great speech, he is clearly intelligent, and he is a likable guy. But this like of experience is more than just a bullseye for his opponents to throw darts towards.  It is a real problem.  When he gets in to one on one debates with the Republican nominee he's going to lack policy and leadership experience, which help him formulate answers and positions on the fly.  The guy lurking in the shadows is John Edwards, and that plastic personality is not going to fly when it's front and center.    Joe Biden should be licking his chops. He has years of experience, he has taken moderate positions on some issues, and his baggage really isn't all that bad. But he can't get any face time.
Enter politics 2.0.
If both of these candidates would embrace the new technologies available to them, they could gain a big bounce within weeks.
Here is what I would suggest.
Spend some of the campaign war chest driving potential supporters to your website.  Spend at least twelve hours a day, three days a week, on that website.  Answer questions with real time chat, respond to e-mails personally, and have a phone sitting right next to you. When an e-mail comes, pick up the damn phone and call the person. Chat for a few minutes, try to address the issue, and offer to follow up.  You'll have a sure thing supporter, and in most cases, an instant word-of-mouth die hard supporter.  Your campaign staff can categorize the questions and you may answer a few hundred with a single response. When you make that response, again, personalize it. 
Start your response with, "We've gotten this question from Mary Smith in Idaho, John Jones in New York city, Joe Blow from Birmingham and a few more of you".
The next step is to work with the bloggers.  Scour technorati and digg and see what the bloggers are saying, then respond directly to the blog.  Addressing just ten blogs a day, two or three days a week can get  your message out to hundreds of thousands of interested voters.
Let me summarize a bit.  As I've said, to win a political campaign, you need to be a politician. But it's 2007, and there is more than one way to politic.
Now go to U4prez and start your campaign. And Fred, Joe, Ron or anyone else trying to increase exposure, call me and I'll set up an on-line QnA for you on the site, and you can start broadening your base.