I think we've got to do BOTH!
Hillary didn't hesitate to point out that Obama wouldn't be the best person to answer a 2 a.m. call. Ron Paul shouldn't hesitate to point out his opponents shortcomings either.
Many don't like Romney,just because of a gut feeling, but they rationalize that because he seems like a weak person he won't be dangerous. Since the mainstream is saying Ron Paul has radical ideas and Romney comes across as bland and is only dissed because he is a flip-flopper (that doesn't sound very scary), the uncomfortable feelings people get from Romney's persona get pushed down and people vote for what they think is safe.
That Romney is bland/safe needs to be dispelled. He would be a scary and dangerous president, just like Obama, with his push for war and stripping American citizens of their liberties. Plus both Obama and Romney would prop up the TBTF banks in a heartbeat (
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...5-romney-im-not-looking-to-break-up-big-banks) and debt would continue to pile up to the point of no return.
I think Ron Paul's PLUSES need to be pushed. Many don't know of Ron Paul's electability and that MOST EVERY economic expert agrees that Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who grasps the desperation of the situation America faces. Or that he's the only one who HAS a viable plan to fix the mess we are in.
I think people can't get ENOUGH information. They need to know why it IS in their best interest to vote for Ron Paul because of what he wants to do. And, people also need to know of the bad consequences that come with their "other" choices.
In my opinion.