A Reality Check for Mr. Greenhut on Hillary: AKA “I endorse Hillary Clinton for President”

The Register’s Steven Greenhut accomplished two things in yesterday’s editorial; he got across how much he personally loathes Hillary Clinton and how her election as the first female president might serve as the cure for what ails the Republican Party right now.

Steve blasts Hillary’s “barely disguised support for massive government programs, her grating schoolmarm personality and her aggressive political behavior” as reasosn for her loathsomeness.  I don’t know if Steve has ever personally met Senator Clinton, but unless he has, the think the comment on her personality is below the belt.  As for barely disguised support for massive government programs or aggressively political behavior, well would those be criticisms of a male politician Steve?  Would you blast George Bush, Dick Cheney, Rudy Giulani or Karl Rove for the same approach?  Or are those comments sexist? 

I met Hillary in 2005 and led with a quick joke; she laughed, we posed and had a brief exchange about my hometown of Rome, NY.  I was pre-disposed, but found her as charming as I expected her to be.


I laughed at Steve’s description of Hillary as an “enemy of freedom.”  Yep, those Bushies are practically saints when it comes to preserving our freedoms.

As far as suport for massive government programs, Steve has to be factoring in Hillary’s Healthcare Plan.  Unlike the plan from President Clinton’s first term, which called for a massive overhaul of the present healthcare system, “Hillarycare 2.0” is based on choice.  Today’s private healthcare system is broken.  Americans pay way too much for healthcare and don’t nearly get enough back from our investment.

The staple of her plan is pretty simple. If you have health insurance you like, you keep it.  If you don’t have insurance or you’re not happy with the coverage you have, you can buy new insurance on your own through a purchasing pool set up and maintained by the government.  You can select from a choice of plans in much the same way federal workers (and Congress) and employees of large companies do now with similar benefits.  No insurer can deny you coverage or charge you more because of pre-exisitng conditions.  The cost of insurance would drop or hold the line because of lower overhead. If you’re too poor to afford this coverage, the government would help you with financial assistance while continuing to make Medicaid and other safety-net programs available to the very poor.  Its a lot less expenses than going to the emergency room.  

A massive government program? Yes, but still dramatically cheaper than fighting an unjust war in Iraq and paying private contractors 40 cents from every tax dollar spent there.

A disclosure: I wrote Hillary a check in 2005 for her Senate bid (I’m from upstate New York and most of my family is still there); and I wrote her a check in June.  While I’m sure she’s going to make her share of mistakes before now and the primary, unlike Chuck DeVore’s candidate, former Senator Fred Thompson, at least she knows the Soviet Union has been out of comission since the early 1990s.  I also think Hillary is capable of staying awake for much of the day.  And Bill Clinton would be an outstanding asset to restoring America’s alliances around the world.

Since Chris Prevatt has already endorsed John Edwards and Andrew Davey is a huge Senator Obama support, I’d like to announce my own endorsement. I support Hillary Clinton for president in 2008.  And I will go to the bumper sticker: it takes another Clinton to clean up after another Bush.

  8 comments for “A Reality Check for Mr. Greenhut on Hillary: AKA “I endorse Hillary Clinton for President”

  1. Steven Greenhut
    October 8, 2007 at 4:04 pm

    Oh come on, Dan. I compared the Republicans to cancer. I savaged Giuliani. You know I despise and constantly make fun of Bush. Thompson is an empty suit. Romney is a waste of hair gel. And you think I’m protecting those numbskull Republicans? One needn’t have met Hillary personally to know that she has a schoolmarm personality any more than one would have to have met Dubya to know that he is an idiot. You guys often refer to him in such terms, yet I suppose you have not met him. I did interview Bush in a small group once for 20 minutes. He seemed OK in the meeting — I base my opinions on him on his policy and his public pronouncements. I never met Giuliani, who is a thuggish sort, also based on his public persona!

  2. Dan Chmielewski
    October 8, 2007 at 4:25 pm

    Steve — why do you keep hoping the Republicans will somehow right the ship? Hillary as chemo implies she just might save the Republican Party. I would prefer they go the route of the Whigs and let Libertarians rise and prosper.

    I would love to meet President Bush and Vice President Cheney someday; and it wil be great to greet my family again once I get out of Gitmo 😉

    The New York Times reported yesterday that Hillary is gaining huge new support from senior and women who have given her a second look and are judging her on her merits and not those of her husband’s administration.

  3. Steven Greenhut
    October 8, 2007 at 4:36 pm

    You’re probably right that they can’t. I’d like to see both major parties go away and the Libertarians emerge as the victors. But I’m trying to stay a bit grounded in reality. Unfortunately, the Dems are too reluctant to end this stupid war. If you end up in Gitmo, I never met you. 🙂

  4. Dan Chmielewski
    October 8, 2007 at 4:57 pm

    My defense line will be, “at least I’m not as bad as Steve Greenhut. He really hates you guys.” LOL. And Orange is my favorite color.

  5. james
    October 8, 2007 at 8:12 pm

    This is one Democratic-leaning independent vote Hillary Clinton almost certainly won’t get. So I hope she’s not the nominee. It’s going to be tedious to have the line-up of Democrats once again trying to cajole lefties into voting for their DLC centrist with tired talk of “be realistic.” I’m just saying… her nomination will shave-off part of the Democratic base and unify disaffected fragments of the Republican base. Polls have shown she’s less likely to beat a Republican than are some of the other Dem candidates. But BTW, I do think there is a certain unfairness in charging the woman in the race as “aggressive” as if all these folks are not aggressive. I don’t see anything in her political style as by definition more aggressive than others… I think the fact that hse’s a woman leads folks to see her quite normal level of political “aggression” (for a politician) as excessive. Looking at the debates, her style is more mild than many of the male candidates, such as Kucinich, to name just one.

  6. October 8, 2007 at 8:41 pm

    Pete Fundy will gladly write Dan a check if he moves back to New York.

    Warmly yours,
    Pete Fundy
    Senior Editorial Writer

  7. james
    October 8, 2007 at 9:02 pm

    Hey Pete!! Gimme that check. I’m from New York too. I want a check for about 30 billion dollars, you know the kind given to Bush for his failures in Iraq on a regular basis… no wait… make that a blank check. Just sign it and send it to me and once it clears I am gone gone gone back to New York! Make it me Pete! Make it me!!

  8. October 8, 2007 at 9:16 pm

    Calm down, james. It’s not that simple.

    First, I have to lead with a joke. If you laugh, and Pete Fundy finds you charming, then you might–and I use that word LIBERALLY, mind you–have a chance of receiving a modest check from Pete Fundy.

    Warmly yours,
    Pete Fundy
    Senior Editorial Writer

Comments are closed.