But he doesn't exist politically. He has 6 delegates. He is running dead last in the polls (as he has been this entire time). There is nothing to suggest that some miracle will happen and he will become viable come super tuesday.
As such why should the debate focus on someone who has no chance of winning. You can't blame the media for Paul's dismal showing.
I absolutely blame the media, at least in part. The media plays a major, though not decisive, role in picking the front-runners in both major parties. (It almost completely ignores any third parties.)
From the beginning before any polling was done or any primaries took place, it was obvious that Clinton or Obama would be the Democratic nominee. Why? Because they were getting all the media coverage. How many people in this country even know who Mike Gravel is, for example?
In the case of the GOP, it was less certain. I actually think the media did its best to promote Giuliani, but even
boobus Americanus wasn't stupid enough to buy the portrayal of Giuliani as a conservative. In any case, they've been ignoring Paul as much as possible with the exception of an interview here and there. They were giving him a bit more coverage earlier in the race, but once he started making better numbers than Thompson and Giuliani, the media suddenly started completely ignoring him.
Once the media has its front-runners picked out, they justify ignoring the other candidates by saying that voters aren't as interested in the underdogs. It's a vicious cycle: the media gives attention to certain candidates, who then become popular because of that exposure; then they get more attention from the media because of their popularity, which makes them even more popular, etc. There's no way for the underdogs to make a comeback or be heard. This is how the media decides whom we'll get to vote for.
Most Americans love big government and are afraid of too much freedom (as is clear from their votes), and for that reason, I'm not sure this country deserves any better than it's going to get. So I'm not claiming that Paul would necessarily be the leader if the media weren't biased. But I think it's unquestionable that the media lowers Paul's numbers.