One of the more humorous times I’ve enjoyed in my 41 years in journalism was Meg Whitman blowing $180 million in her 2010 run for governor against Jerry Brown. For that she got 40.9 percent of the vote, just above the 40.0 percent Neal Kashkari got in 2014 spending almost nothing.

I wrote about her on Aug. 4, 2010 on The reference is to her opposition to Proposition 23, which would have repealed AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which still is killing what’s left of California manufacturing. “Basically, these rich Silicon Valley liberals, including Meg, want to make California an eco-utopia for their offices and homes, but to put the ‘dirty’ parts of their industries in other states and countries,” I wrote. “Which is where millions of jobs are headed.

“She’s hopeless. This is the most amateurish campaign I’ve ever seen, even more than Dan Lungren’s for governor in 1998.”

Now Meg is back in the news endorsing Hillary for Supreme Leader and blasting Trump. Much as how in 2010 she echoed Schwarzenegger’s campaigns – business person outside politics – she unoriginally is echoing common attacks on Trump: “exploited anger, grievance, xenophobia and racial division … demagoguery has undermined the fabric of our national character…. Trump’s reckless and uninformed positions on critical issues – from immigration to our economy to foreign policy – have made it abundantly clear that he lacks both the policy depth and sound judgment required as president.”

According to the New York Times, “Ms. Whitman also said she ‘absolutely’ stood by her comments at a private gathering of Republican donors this year comparing Mr. Trump to Hitler and Mussolini, explaining that dictators often come to office through democratic means.”

These comparisons of our mature democracy to the crises in Central Europe almost a century ago are facile, as scholar Paul Gottfried argues in a new book, “Fascism: The Career of a Concept” (his summary here). Even non-historians probably know that Hitler wasn’t adept at manipulating his Facebook page.

But’s let’s go with Meg’s analogy.

The Hitler and Mussolini regimes blabbed about “Das Volk,” but actually did not come to power “through democratic means.” Hitler was not elected chancellor, but was appointed to the post by Hindenburg. According to, “Hindenburg, intimidated by Hitler’s growing popularity and the thuggish nature of his cadre of supporters, the SA (or Brownshirts), initially refused to make him chancellor. Instead, he appointed General Kurt von Schleicher, who attempted to steal Hitler’s thunder by negotiating with a dissident Nazi faction led by Gregor Strasser. At the next round of elections in November, the Nazis lost ground—but the Communists gained it,” yet Hitler was appointed chancellor anyway, despite his party always being a minority.

As to Italy, didn’t Meg’s Princeton and Harvard education ever enlighten her about Il Duce’s March on Rome?

What I’d like to see is a debate between Meg and Trump-backing Peter Thiel, the Silicon Valley investor who gave a speech at the GOP convention emphasizing how Trump would spread entrepreneurship beyond Meg’s billionaire set to the rest of the country. He set a different tone: “Across the country, wages are flat. Americans get paid less today than ten years ago. But healthcare and college tuition cost more every year. Meanwhile Wall Street bankers inflate bubbles in everything from government bonds to Hillary Clinton’s speaking fees.”

By the way, how’s Hewlett Packard doing? I checked. Since Meg took over as CEO in September 2011, its stock is up 40 percent. Sounds great. Except during the same period the S&P 500 has doubled. So someone who invested $200,000 in HP instead of an S&P index fund made $120,000 less, enough to buy a new Mercedes S550.

If Hillary wins, what cabinet job would Meg claim? I’m guessing Commerce. That would be the time to buy HP stock.

(Note: I’m aware HP split in two; the valuations above are for HP and its successor in market valuations, HP Inc., not the new HP Enterprise.)