The flak from the Whitewater and related allegations could still undermine President Clinton's attempt to win a second term in the White House. Public opinion in the United States is fickle and uncertain, and has probably been confused by the sheer volume of detail linking him and his wife to the affair. Added to this, there is no escaping the bitterly partisan nature of the accusations which are likely to continue making headlines in the final months of the presidential election year.
After more than a year of hearings, involving (for the statistically minded) 60 sessions averaging five hours each and generating 10,000 pages of testimony and more than three times as much in depositions from 245 people, the majority report of the US Senate investigation into Whitewater, when it was published last week, was curiously short of hard evidence. Was this, as the Republican senators claimed, because of successful stone walling by the Clintons or, as the Democrat minority contended, because the whole operation was an extravagant witch hunt designed solely to build innuendo into near fact?
Neither interpretation can be taken at face value in their political context. But regardless of the Senate hearings, it is clear that Mrs Clinton was close to some risky activities back in Arkansas; how close has not been established and cannot be known for certain short of proper legal process. Whether her own involvement would ever have attracted attention if she had not been the wife of the US President - and the forceful woman that she is - must at least be seriously doubted.
Whitewater, by now, has become the generic term for the whole complex of accusations made against President Clinton - an ironic twist for the vaunted "joint presidency" that unites his own alleged failings, sexual and otherwise, with those of Hillary Rodham Clinton. The list is now extensive, ranging from sexual harassment, illegal political funding in Arkansas and perennial reminders of "draft dodging" during the Vietnam War, to the acquisition of hundreds of the FBI's confidential files, in unexplained circumstances, which the organisation's head has described as "an egregious violation of privacy".
How much effect this will have on the electorate next November is hard to predict, given that other factors are bound to come into play. Mrs Clinton can clearly be presented as the victim of anti feminism in some quarters; Mr Clinton's alleged promiscuity may not lose him many votes in others. The evidence suggests, however, that the prolonged campaign against him is having its effect. At the end of May, after some former business associates were found guilty on Whitewater charges, Mr Clinton still had a lead of almost 20 per cent over Mr Bob Dole. In the last few weeks, the gap has shrunk to 6 per cent, presumably as the character question assumes centre stage.
He will, however, have a number of assets against Mr Dole: relative youth, a perception that he has grown into his office in the last four years, a reasonably successful profile in foreign affairs, including the political process in the North. Mrs Clinton's initial popularity followed by the collapse of her health reforms have kept her in the public eye as a highly politicised presidential wife. With more disclosures inevitable, her complex, modern and energetic persona may be more important for the outcome than that of her husband.