Opinion

Clinton's Contribution: One Free Grope

SUFFERING from a case of sleaze fatigue? Be clear on this: If the Jones/Lewinsky/Willey scandal seems wearying, demoralizing and unending, you can thank the Clinton White House.

It's bad enough that Clinton has invoked executive privilege in an attempt to keep secret information about discussions he had with aides about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky and Kathleen Willey. That's an abuse of executive privilege -- which should be saved for "sensitive national security secrets," not bimbo eruptions -- and clearly designed to jam up the special prosecutor's investigation.

Now, networks report, Clintonia also has sought executive privilege for the first lady's talks with aides about the women. This bolsters two suspicions: That the White House wants to drag this scandal out and that the Clintons don't want the public to know about their role in smearing the president's women.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those conservatives who magically has embraced the feminist mantra that marked men have no right to challenge their accusers. It would have been perfectly appropriate, for example, if Clinton's private attorney, Bob Bennett, had brought up Paula Jones' sexual activity in order to refute her laughable "consequent sexual aversion" claim.

It is wrong, however, for the president to hide behind his staff when he can speak for himself. It's wrong for Clinton to hide behind a court gag order, then use federal employees to dig up -- and make public -- dirt on his accusers. It's also wrong for the president to hide behind feminist skirts -- those of his wife, Ann Lewis and Gloria Steinem -- so that he can get away with treating women like footstools.

It's wrong for Clinton to claim that he can't tell the public about his relations with Lewinsky, while someone on his team is digging up dirt on Lewinsky confidante Linda Tripp's arrest -- without a conviction -- when she was 19.

It was one thing for the White House to release letters Willey wrote to the president after she alleges he groped her -- even while it can't find other sought-after documents concerning Lewinsky. But certain leaked stories -- a friend says Willey lied about being pregnant to get back at a former lover, Willey denies it -- seem designed specifically to scare off other women. The recently released Jones' brief includes Jane Does who have seen what happens to women who talk about Bill Clinton.

Some feminists have begun making excuses for the president that could hurt working women. Feminist Steinem wrote a piece in Sunday's New York Times,in which she said she believed all the women's accusations against Clinton "for the sake of argument." Willey has claimed the president fondled her breast and placed her hand on his crotch. Nonetheless, Steinem wrote that Clinton "took 'no' for an answer." Brutes have cause to rejoice: Feminists have concocted a One Free Grope defense.

It could end with a press conference. Clinton could come clean before the American public -- or magically present a case that supports his unbelievable claim of innocence -- and still ride high in the polls. The country would be spared months, or years, of dirt. Women would be spared what's left of their reputations. What's more, Clinton would come out ahead, as an apathetic public would defend him against impeachment even if he admitted to obstruction of justice and perjury.

Which means that all the mud-slinging and the prolonged nastiness exist for one reason: Bill Clinton doesn't want to admit to his poor treatment of women. Thus, in order to maintain his facade of sensitivity, he and his defenders are willing to savage the reputations of any women upon whom he has set his sights.