Hillary as Ron Paul II
Hillary's populism seems to know no bounds and like Ron Paul her appeal to disappointed and fearful Americans is increasing. Ron Paul is still in the race but going nowhere but Hillary is increasingly flying the populist flag for him. Ron Paul's libertarian message has a strange appeal for Americans; driving across North Carolina and Pennsylvania over the past few weeks it is Ron Paul flags and banners you see everywhere rather than Obama or Hillary signs. Yesterday he held a "Freedom Rally" at an Indiana university campus and his book: "The Revolution: A Manifesto" began at No. 1 on Amazon.com's "Hot New Releases in Books."
Hillary is tapping into the same vein of populism, where emotion trumps rational argument every time. She tells us she is going to smash OPEC, something every US President since Carter has failed to accomplish. She is going to obliterate Iran if it attacks Israel. She has even made a unilateral offer of a nuclear shield to protect Saudi Arabia (which provided so many of the September 11 hijackers) and finally she has attacked economists (all of them) who fundamentally disagree with her petrol tax holiday plan: “I’m not going to put in my lot with economists,” or “elite opinion" as she calls it.
And the populist
touch is working like a dream. All across North Carolina and Indiana,
what the elites derisively call LMCs (lower middle class) voters have
flocked to Hillary and Bill. These are the truck drivers who cannot
afford to fill their tanks, the underpaid teachers, the salespeople who
cannot shift their products in a recession and the hurting franchise
owners of strip mall America. They are also mostly white.
As the New York Times
puts it today: "Somehow, a woman who has not regularly filled her own
gasoline tank in well over a decade, who with her husband made $109
million in the last eight years and who vacations with Oscar de la
Renta, has transformed herself into a working-class hero."
All this
from a multimillionaire who grew up in a rich Chicago suburb, went to
private schools and has spent the last 25 years inside a secret service
protected bubble. Hillary does not need to fill her own tank with
petrol but she sure knows how to ham it up for her "just folks"
audiences by narrowly focusing in their concerns.
Here is Obama's response to her populist surge:
(Picture Getty Images)
ewkvcygo blimfhdwx ioxarhpl nxfupasoq ysgcqpm xfnyoide ovjayxbz
Posted by: ohmawcx byazcnlqm | 17 March 2009 at 05:11 AM
Are you serious? What kind of comparison is this? Ron Paul has voted on principle for 20 years, often being the sole vote against bigger government. He has been an unwavering advocate for freedom and limited government, the very thing Hillary believes in. He cannot be bought, he is fiscally responsible, and he walks the walk. He doesn't even participate in the Congressional pension program. Why? Principle. Show me Hillary's principles. I dare you. She has none worth respecting. Anything goes- all that matters is winning to her. For Ron Paul, all that matters is the message of freedom.
Please don't compare Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton. I'd laugh if it weren't so insulting Ron Paul.
Perhaps you should look up the Clinton years in Arkansas? Google "Clinton and cocaine and Iran Contra". Let us know what you find. Or try "Clinton and missing persons". Or how about "Clinton and WACO". "Clinton and socialism" is another goodie.
Posted by: SM | 02 June 2008 at 06:09 PM
"Somehow, a woman who has not regularly filled her own gasoline tank in well over a decade, who with her husband made $109 million in the last eight years and who vacations with Oscar de la Renta, has transformed herself into a working-class hero."
Just goes to show, the working classes need to choose their heroes more carefully. And they trust these people with the vote?
Posted by: Macander | 12 May 2008 at 11:38 PM
Dear Mr. Boyle,
please read up on Ron Paul and see if you can muster it to smear him once more (by putting him at the same level of Hillary / populism / appeal to emotions etc.)
I love the Independent, but your analysis seems more neocon puppet than I would assume based on the title of your newspaper.
Posted by: Francesco Marelli | 10 May 2008 at 02:44 PM
Hillary has attended Bilderburg meetings along with Bill-an elite group of people that run the world--media, banking, government officials, etc. She is funded by big corporations and yet she tells the people that she will put big corporations "in its place". Ron Paul on the other hand is not funded by big corporations and special interest groups. He is funded by the people who know and value the true American heart and spirit. The Constitution was written to put restrains on the government, not on the American people. The government does not have the right to strip peoples' God given rights. This year's election is at it's pivotal moment in history because our God given rights are being taken away "legally". Just remember that Hitler was able to get away with things the legal way in his own land. He also created such things as Protection of the Homeland, sounds familiar... Homeland Security. Not to mention the Patriot Act is really similar to the law that Hitler passed to strip away their own citizens' rights. The meaning of fascism is equalled to the saying of big corporations in bed with big government. Just look at who supported the Nazis and still those corporations are still around today fully operating. Who truly is to blame here, government is like the puppet while big multinational corporation heads are running around doing immoral and unethical acts.
Posted by: kristinerhodes | 09 May 2008 at 08:20 PM
Hilary is evil. The Times got something right for once. She has no idea what its like to be working class. Her socialist policies pray upon the ignorant hoping that someone will come up with a solution for our economic problems. Socialism may appear to ignorant people as a solution to our economic woes, but socialist policies are what created them. Russia proved that socialism (yes communism is a form of socialism) does not work.
Posted by: Bill | 09 May 2008 at 04:04 AM
Thanks for the hearty laugh, Mr. Doyle.
Posted by: Jeff | 09 May 2008 at 12:13 AM
Wow.
Ron Paul
pure capitalist
anti-government
personal and economic freedom
NON-intervention foreign policy
Understanding Paul's points on issues takes serious research
Paul doesn't care if he wins but cares to wants to teach knows he is not winning but continues his campaign in hopes of better educating the public
Hillary
pure socialist
pro-government
anti-economic freedom (pro personal)
Interventionist foreign policy
Understanding Hillary's stance on issues takes 5 minutes of watching Fox news or CNN.
Hillary wants to win so badly that she depends on your ignorance on any social or economic issue for the votes.
Wasn't the populist movement a socialist movement anyway??
If you can say anything about the Ron Paul movement it despises socialism.
Posted by: Erin | 08 May 2008 at 07:16 AM
Oh... I was kind of hoping this was a story about Ron Paul. Cheers from Australia.
Posted by: Peter | 08 May 2008 at 02:19 AM
Ron Paul is in the race to spread a message(he could still win as the delegates are not bound to the Constitution and we kknew this long before Nevada) while Hilliary is in it only to get into the White House. BIG DIFFERENCE!!
Posted by: Mike | 08 May 2008 at 01:26 AM
Please don't put Ron Paul and Hitlery in the same sentence unless it reads Ron Paul beats Hillary to win the presidency.
Posted by: John D. | 07 May 2008 at 11:34 PM
Its not a comparison rather a contrast between Ron Paul and the wicked witch. How America could excepted the wife of a disgraced ex president, democrats have no shame. Ron Paul seeks to reestablish the political direction and course established by Jeffersons' Declaration of Independence from europe. This has nothing at all in common with counter revolutionary HillBillery.
Posted by: moshe | 07 May 2008 at 08:52 PM
While Ron Paul may have tapped into a populist message, he and Hillary are polar opposites. "where emotion trumps rational argument every time." is the complete opposite of Ron Paul's appeal. He appeals to the rational, not the emotional.
Posted by: Jeff Martin | 07 May 2008 at 07:57 PM
Hellary comes up short and delves our country into further debt!
Dr. Paul has correctly diagnosed the economic crises and has the correct treatment for this cancer that threatens to consume Americans liberties and condemn future generations to serfdom.
Go Ron Paul!
Posted by: Teflon Ron | 07 May 2008 at 07:38 PM
Ron Paul a populist! Please give me break.
I did not realise that relativism ,as a mode of thiking, could do so much damage. Until! until I read your article. Comparing gold to brass. what is this beautiful world coming to? Whatever happened to good old british journalism?
What is done out of malice or sheer ignorance? May be we will never know.
God save the queen.
Posted by: Jacques Duchiene | 07 May 2008 at 07:28 PM
You're realling missing something here. It's actually OBAMA who has broken into the same vein as Ron Paul: people who are totally fed up with Washington. Hillary is exactly what people who are fed up are sick of.
Also a KEY focus of both Obama and Ron Paul is on our militant foreign policy, and how we've lost track. Both candidates have made this a central tenet of their campaigns (and with regard to foreign policy, Ron Paul said that Obama would be better than McCain). So the ignore the foreign policy issue and claim Paula and Hillary have anything in common... well quite frankly you are totally not getting what's happening on the ground in America.
Posted by: Andrew | 07 May 2008 at 06:17 PM
Hillary Clinton is to Ron Paul what Karl Marx is to Thomas Paine.
You sir have probably misunderstood the beginning of the biggest political and historical education movements in American history. The Remnant is alive and growing...we will not stop!
Posted by: CT Johnson | 07 May 2008 at 05:46 PM
Hey he atleast got one thing in the article correct....
HIS OWN NAME>>>>> LOL what a tool. Usually someone needs to know something about a topic before engaging in an article on some sort of political issues or candidates. This tool has none of previous said qualifications, IN other words STFU fool. I apologize for the absurdities...
Posted by: Hey | 07 May 2008 at 05:19 PM
Here is Doyle's bio for the paper;
'Whether traveling around the country or in his Washington DC base, The Independent’s US Editor Leonard Doyle keeps a beady eye on the country’s low-down and dirty politics. Until recently The Independent’s Foreign Editor, he chronicles a country where George Bush exploits the politics of fear, and venal politicians are locked in a dizzying embrace with money and corporate interests and voters hardly get a look in'.
THE "beady eye" is that of another clueless Brit with his look what I see attitude that reins in the UK. Never mind looking into the low down and dirty media and journalism that is bought and paid by the same interests he is keeping an eye on FOR US.
I lived in the UK for 10 years.
The Brits still enjoy looking down on us and educating ALL the inferiors here or at home. Their own people know this and don't pay much attention to them which is how they like it. They have learned the art of relying on apathy from the US so that they might influence those that care while the rest don't squeal.
They have never spent any time worrying about the truth in their media, although early on the BBC lead the word in fair journalism and news, but no more. The queen has been banning media for 40+ years and most Brits know they get the party line shoved at them. Look at the SUN, it is the best tabloid in the world with its page three girl(S), and the NO 1 paper in the UK. These people write for pay, plain and simple. As always, follow the money.
Posted by: RL Price | 07 May 2008 at 04:06 PM
The Independent? Not independent thinking that's for sure! Read the book! We've had 20 years of Bush and Clinton dynasties over here and look where we're at! Less liberties, less secure, so deep in debt our grandchildren will still be paying this off! Send me your address and I will send you a free copy of Dr. Ron Pauls book on my dime, then maybe you'll see the light!
Posted by: Rosco1776 | 07 May 2008 at 02:02 PM
This article is an embarrasment to my fellow countrymen. Did this guy actually get paid for this outragously poor article?
Posted by: UKLooney | 07 May 2008 at 01:04 PM
Where did the Independent find this Leonard Doyle? Where ever it was, they need to throw him back there.
What a lame piece of journalism. If one can call it that.
If it wasn't for the likes of these Murdoch shills, Ron Paul would be storming ahead as the GOP nominee.
Ron Paul is by far the best hope for America. This race is not over yet, we have six months to go before the Republican National Convention and anything can happen to McInsane from now until then.
Posted by: Darren | 07 May 2008 at 11:48 AM
Drivel Tripe & Rubbish is what this lousy article is
Posted by: J Huttington | 07 May 2008 at 10:15 AM
ruh roh rou rissed roff ra ron raul reople
Posted by: Ranonymouse | 07 May 2008 at 09:15 AM
"where emotion trumps rational argument every time"
Precisely the opposite my socialist friend.
Posted by: Edward | 07 May 2008 at 08:36 AM
This whole newspaper is a sick joke. It's just more of the same unidirectional shouting in your face the self-serving opinions you're supposed to submit your moral and intellectual capacities to, until you either puke or give in.
Check out the links underlying the authors names: none of them actually want to hear from any of you. They just want to keep shouting in your gagged face the sick twisted evil their paymasters want you to believe.
Independent?
In a pig's eye ...
Posted by: ScuzzaMan | 07 May 2008 at 08:05 AM
Doesn't this limey have some security and traffic cameras to primp in front of in the United Police State Kingdom?
Sorry, but what the UK knows about Dr. Paul or libertarianism couldn't fill a thimble at the English Channel.
Posted by: Tannim | 07 May 2008 at 07:06 AM
What else do you expect from a Murdoch controlled hack.
Posted by: Bob Dobbs | 07 May 2008 at 06:42 AM
You are a terrible writer. Ron Paul's message is good
Yours stinks... INDEED
You can also find this article by google searching DRIVEL, TRIPE, and RUBBISH
Posted by: Tom | 07 May 2008 at 06:34 AM
lol
Posted by: Bob Dobbs | 07 May 2008 at 06:33 AM
Is this for real? LOL!!!!
Posted by: Chase | 07 May 2008 at 04:24 AM
What an uninformed and biased article...
Equating what Ron Paul's freedom movement with that place where "emotion trumps rational argument" is just plain ignorance.
I think it's funny when Brits try to talk out their rectums about the American political process. My wife is English and it's taken a while to get her to admit she was completely biased by the prevailing political ideologies in her home country, a country whose populace likes to wax pompous on every affair while being unable to either understand or iterate the basic tenents of the American Bill of Rights.
A word of advice to The Independent and the MI6 agents who apparently are directing your editorial department: try talking about something you KNOW next time.
Posted by: Brad | 07 May 2008 at 04:17 AM
Mr Doyle,
Get off the booze and read DR Paul's book, might just wake you up to the world around you.
Posted by: Davo | 07 May 2008 at 04:12 AM
By even trying to compare Dr. Paul and Mrs. Clinton you show a basic ignorance of the voting records of each candidate. Paul wants to kick out our new king and restore the republic, while Clinton just wants to be the new king. It is as basic as that.
Posted by: Chris | 07 May 2008 at 03:51 AM
This guy is a wanker. Thats right. A yank called you a wanker.
Ron Paul and Billary have nothing in common. Ron Paul reminds us how our country was lead to prosperity. Billary wants to adopt socialist ideas and 'give' everybody something.
The Revolution: A manifesto
Read it. Then report.
Wanker.
Posted by: Parke | 07 May 2008 at 03:22 AM
The comparison is apt, in a superficial way. Ron Paul wants to tear down the Federal Reserve which he says is oppressing Americans. Hillary wants to tear down OPEC for the same reasons. But there are vast differences.
The Fed is a creature of the US federal government and it is entirely within the legal and moral domain of the government to dismantle it. Furthermore, the Federal Reserve being a government-mandated and protected monopoly - whose only purpose is to produce counterfeit money - is on its face an instrument of thievery and is an abomination.
OPEC on the other hand is entirely outside of the US federal government's jurisdiction, and is none of the business of any citizen of the United States. It's their oil, they can sell it to whomever they like, and demand whatever payment they like. The urge to throw down OPEC is nothing but imperialism, that is, the use of government force to rob and plunder. This policy fits in well with Hillary's threats to murder Iranians if their government shows insufficient obedience to US domination.
Ron Paul's platform is peaceful - it is based on the Golden Rule. Hillary's rule is Might is Right. Both are "populist". The only question is, which one leads to peace and prosperity?
Posted by: Willy Makeit | 07 May 2008 at 03:00 AM
As a ron paul supporter, I don't really value my opinion of the democratic candidates but honestly out of those two, I would say obama is running a campaign on unrealistic intentions. During his speeches, he acts like he has been endorsed by god with the intangibles (hope and change). When he speaks, the audience moans "amen" and he talks about crossing party lines and unifying the country when he has no record of collaborating with republicans, he has no record of doing anything for that matter.
Posted by: Connor h | 07 May 2008 at 02:51 AM
If you don't know who Ron Paul is or what he believes in, read his book, The Revolution: A Manifesto.
Posted by: Andy White | 07 May 2008 at 02:47 AM
Ron Paul isn't anything like Hillary Clinton. This blog is a joke.
Posted by: Andy | 07 May 2008 at 02:40 AM
Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul have absolutely nothing in common. This post is not worth the electrons used to transmit it's signal across the interblags.
Posted by: Bill A | 07 May 2008 at 02:37 AM
Leonard,
Do you believe that George Galloway is a member of Hezbollah as well? You should probably live in the country that you are writing about instead of just speculating on what actual Americans are thinking.
Posted by: Patrick | 07 May 2008 at 02:25 AM
This comparison is downright ridiculous. It may be populist to threaten to obliterate another country, but if so then Ron Paul is no populist. Further, he would never argue that we have any business destroying OPEC. Clinton and Paul disagree far more than agree. Furthermore, Clinton (and Obama and McCain) are panderers. Paul can little be accused of that. If you took the time to look into the intellectual background of Ron Paul's ideas you might understand. Clinton has zero intellectual background to her ideas, which is what makes her 'populist'.
Posted by: Sean | 07 May 2008 at 02:23 AM
The drivel that passes for political commentary in the press never ceases to amaze me. This article makes loaded assumptions that Ron Paul's ideas are irrational, impractical or kooky but doesn't even attempt to explain why. I'm yet to see any "journalist" or "political commentator" address Ron Paul's stances without loaded bias or sneering mocking remarks.
I recommend you guys at least go read some of his books before you form an opinion. Your depth of analysis of Ron Paul is simply atrocious.
Posted by: BlogVomit | 07 May 2008 at 02:23 AM
Justin, this is more like it:
Hillary Clinton is to Ron Paul as Vladimir I. Lenin is to Thomas Jefferson.
Posted by: Re Justin | 07 May 2008 at 02:13 AM
r u serious?! Hilary and Ron Paul are absolutely othing alike. You are obviously misinformed and ignorant! How can you make such a comparison?! They are polar opposites you frakking idiot!
Posted by: Thomas William | 07 May 2008 at 02:12 AM
Hillary couldn't be further from Dr. Paul's positions. To use an analogy that British and Americans can both relate to:
Ron Paul is like the patriots of the American Revolution (ironically trying to depose of a George. Hillary is like a Tory maintaining loyalty the the establishment(crown).
Hillary is a neo-con.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tory#American_Revolution
Posted by: Publius | 07 May 2008 at 01:44 AM
Good lord! I know you brits have been slowly suffocating under the warm embrace of nanny-state socialism for a while now but confusing Ron Paul with a populist?! Methinks someone needs to read up on the candidates' policy positions.
Posted by: rdc | 07 May 2008 at 01:23 AM
Yes. The world is complex. The economy is complex.
THAT IS THE POINT!!!!! When you tinker and try to control a complex system, you have no way of knowing what will happen. This is called the LAW OF UNINTENDTED CONSEQUENCES.
Therefore, one is reduced to doing what they believe is "right" and "fair". This invariably involves theft from one to give to another or exclusion of one in favor of the other.
The only right thing to do is abide by: THOU SHALL NOT STEAL.
Blow your commie propaganda out your bunghole.
Posted by: v | 07 May 2008 at 01:20 AM
Hillary's Populist surge? LMAO.
Posted by: HRC | 07 May 2008 at 12:58 AM
Oops! I meant "Hillary as George Bush II". Sorry.
Posted by: Leonard | 07 May 2008 at 12:46 AM