I'm a little uneasy about posting this before Sunday, but an apparently leaked copy of the New York Times Magazine article just hit my inbox. I don't know how it got out, and I didn't go looking for it, but I know how anxious I was to see it, so here you go.

Overall, I'm astounded at the positive treatment here. Chris Caldwell fairly portrays Dr. Paul and his politics, editorializes positively on the origins of his message ("the noblest traditions of American decency and patriotism"), and then addresses—and dismisses—the "he's a crackpot" attacks. Our guy emerges as a bright, principled, quixotic candidate who has beat the odds before.

Caldwell's prediction for the outcome is standard press fare, but the article itself argues very persuasivly against that kind of dismissive certainty. I'm sure some Paul supporters will be crying foul, but, especially give the source and the risk, to my mind this is a coup.