Air Hillary

For months now, candidate Hillary Clinton has been doing everything she can to play down the role of first lady and play up the potential role of senator. She even dropped that pesky last name from her campaign banners. But being first lady does have its perks, and one of those is pretty valuable:

"The Secret Service strongly recommends that the first lady use military aircraft for security reasons, and we are not going to compromise Mrs. Clinton's safety for political purposes," reads a press release from her spokesman Howard Wolfson.

Sounds fair, right?

In fact, presidents and vice presidents running for office also use military aircraft on their campaign swings. The practice is perfectly legal. The rules are that the candidate must reimburse the government the price of a first class ticket for each member of the campaign on the plane. The trouble is, the cost of having a military aircraft at your beck and call costs far more than even the most expensive first class ticket ... to anywhere. Still, that's the rule, and because the candidates are usually running for president, it seems almost implied that the nation will foot the bill.

But once again we are stuck with this problem of the unprecedented run of the first lady for the Senate. And once again, Republicans, looking to find fault, have found another stone to throw.

This week, a House Appropriations subcommittee held a hearing to question, but more likely expose, the cost of Mrs. Clinton's campaign travel.

"During a seven-month period in 1999, according to the White House, she took 26 trips to New York on government aircraft, 20 of these had some political component and 14 were 100 percent political in nature," said chairman Jim Kolbe, an Arizona Republican.

"There were approximately 50 flight hours at a cost to the Department of Defense of $3,705 per hour - the cost to operate a C-20. The total cost of operating this aircraft was $182,471. Based on the most recent information we have, her campaign was billed for $36,685 of this."

Nice perk, no doubt, but legal. And Mrs. Clinton's campaign has already reimbursed most of that bill. So what's the problem? Unknowing taxpayers nationwide have paid about $145,000 to finance her campaign.

Kolbe continues: "I am well aware that first ladies have traveled on government aircraft for political purposes in the past ... However, what we are talking about here has nothing to do with the first lady's political or official obligations - she is wearing a new hat that we have never seen before."

And clearly Republicans see it as a black hat. So Democrats wasted no time fighting back. Outside the hearing room, aides from the Democratic Senatorial Committee distributed their own release.

"U.S. House Republicans are playing politics with the security and physical safety of the first lady of the United States," it reads. Seems when you're looking for fightin' words, you do't want to go with just "Hillary."

In turn, Mrs. Clinton's campaign accused Republicans of trying to deflect attention from a controversy brewing around her opponent, New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani, and his handling of the recent shooting of an unarmed man by New York City police.

The motives are relatively transparent. Show the American taxpayers that they are footing the bill for Hillary's run, and that's apt to cause her some trouble. But fair is fair, and while it might seem acceptable for the nation to pay for the president or vice president's run for national office, why should all Americans pay for a New York Senate race?

The New York race is already the most expensive Senate race in history. Mrs. Clinton has raised millions on her own and millions more in soft money contributions. The situation is unprecedented, yes, and the safety of the first lady is paramount. But if one Senate candidate gets to have a bargain-rate Air Force C-20 at her beck and call, shouldn't they all?