Making a big deal about it will feed the "kook" angle, but I think it's fairly obvious the vote totals were highly manipulated.
At about 35% of the vote tallied, it was a dead heat, with less than a few hundred votes separating the three candidates. Suddenly, the totals diverged at around 40%, and Ron Paul was two percent, then four percent behind. The total of over 120,000 votes was said to be something like EIGHT different between the supposed top two. That's statistically off the charts, just as with the hugely fixed elections of 2000 and 2004. What's more, if you look at the math, the totals appear to have been crafted to create a "believable" separation of 3% (24.5/24.5/21.5), but they round PERFECTLY to make it 4%, because the top two are SLIGHTLY above 24.5 and Ron Paul's "cut" is SLIGHTLY below 21.5. Things just don't magically cut like this in real life.
Again, making a big deal about it will reinforce the "kook" angle, but I believe it was clearly fixed. The thing to do is NOT GO AWAY, and point to the fact that as much as they want Ron Paul to disappear, he WILL NOT. The candidate that "wasn't electable" got over 1/5 of the total votes out of something like 9 candidates--by THEIR corrupt count.
Oh yeah, and we're led to believe that Santorum suddenly came within the magic 8 votes of Romney after having basically no chance in hell, just because the religious right kingmakers told a bunch of pastors to tell people to vote for Santorum (or worse, that voters decided for themselves to do so.)
Oh, there's also this:
GOP's Fear of the Rise of Ron Paul (post-Iowa)