Remember the end of "Aliens" when the humans leave the alien planet in their spaceship after killing the queen and they think everything is all right -- but then at the beginning of "Alien 3" you find out that one alien had made its way onto the ship without them knowing and it wreaks havoc on everyone? Well, just when we thought we could be rid of the Clintons and their scandals, Hillary has been elected Senator from the state of New York. If you disapprove of the analogy, you need to stop and think about this more. New Yorkers have given their Senate seat to an immoral woman. New Yorkers were presented with a candidate whose honesty and trustworthiness have come into question time and time again, and it appears they did not care.
I'm not sure why anyone would have cast a vote for Hillary. I suppose it's possible that some people voted the party line and did not bother to follow the individual races at all. This includes the many religious, ethnic and social groups in New York City especially which, incredibly, vote for one party over the other over 90 percent of the time. They walk into the voting booth and flip all the switches for Democrats without even looking at the names. Barring some drastic change in the political landscape of the state and the country, it is likely that the Republicans have virtually no chance to win these voters back.
I have also met people, many of whom I consider to be intelligent, who simply do not feel that we can say with certainty that Hillary is dishonest. They've been through the past eight years just like us, but they are not convinced that there was any wrongdoing on the part of Mrs. Clinton in any of the scandals that have arisen. Having a Senator who lies under oath, which Mrs. Clinton did when questioned about the Travelgate scandal, does not bother them. The last major group of Hillary voters is the most disturbing yet also the fastest growing. It includes people who do not consider it important to hold our elected officials to ethical standards. I feel that a growing number of people in New York and around the country are more comfortable knowing that their representatives have severe faults. No matter what people say, I still contend that Bill and Hillary Clinton have raised our tolerance for scandal and convinced people that personal character means nothing as long as the economy is humming along. Bill Clinton disgraced his office and continues to do so as he continues to build his "legacy" by meddling in the Middle East peace process and ultimately making things worse. He and his wife continue to disgrace the White House, previously one of our country's most sacred landmarks, by inviting strangers, including advocates of Palestinian terrorism, to stay in Motel 1600 provided they bring a hefty contribution check with them. Hillary's first act as Senator-elect was to preempt her opponent's public concession with her victory speech. This simply isn't done in politics, but it reinforces that she has little regard or respect for anyone, especially her opponents. It appears, however, that the public is no longer outraged by this sort of activity, either because it has been desensitized by the onslaught of scandal or because it does not consider this type of activity to be reprehensible. Either case disturbs me.
I suppose I should give Hillary some credit, and quit being a sore loser. She ran an excellent campaign and in just a short time managed to acquaint herself with the state, its people and its issues, perhaps better than her opponent, Rick Lazio, who has lived in New York his entire life. She convinced enough people that she could do a better job in the Senate and she managed to shed the carpetbagger issue by displaying an in depth knowledge of the concerns of New Yorkers, particularly upstate where she performed better than most Democrats usually do. She played the part of the victim well when Lazio approached her during their first debate with a piece of paper asking her to stop using soft money. In the end, the meaning of the entire gesture was lost and the "menacing" Congressman lost the support of many women who felt he invaded Hillary's space. In the end, she won the women's vote by a 60-40 margin, a stunning statistic for a woman who has set back the feminist cause decades by staying in a loveless marriage simply to retain power. Mrs. Clinton has never been good at accepting a lesser role, which she will have to as a freshman minority Senator.
She has also never been good at building bipartisan coalitions. In fact, in its "endorsement" of her candidacy, the liberal New York Times warned that she "has a tendency to treat her political opponents as enemies." This will not serve her well in what may very well be a 50-50 Senate in which nearly all legislation will need some degree of bipartisan support to pass. We had a chance to end the partisanship in politics in this 2000 election. With the presidential race in an unprecedented deadlock, it is likely that both the executive and legislative branches of government will have to put aside their differences to continue to serve the people. I am afraid that Mrs. Clinton will be a block to bipartisanship both because of her arrogant personality and her reputation for divisiveness. For those of you in the other 49 states who do not share my concern, wait until 2004, because I am all but certain that pending a Bush victory, we will see Hillary Clinton run for president. If that doesn't scare you, see a doctor.
