WASHINGTON -- On the evening of President Clinton's deposition in the Paula Jones case, he and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton had been scheduled to go to dinner and the theater. At the last minute, however, they canceled their plans.
Mrs. Clinton subsequently explained to a radio interviewer that she had occupied herself that day by fixing up odds and ends, straightening out some White House closets and otherwise distracting herself from what must have been an embarrassment. It was no great surprise, therefore, to learn that when the president returned after six hours of questioning about his sexual life, under oath, he and Hillary Rodham Clinton would choose to avoid the limelight.
An assumed adulterer
The first lady has been a trouper, so to speak, on the matter: It must be very painful to know that the nation generally assumes her husband is a routine adulterer, and is divided only on whether it makes any political difference. She told the same radio interviewer that while she would not comment specifically on the Jones lawsuit, she worried that such legal irritants prevented her husband from doing the important work of being president.
This is a familiar theme in such circumstances and lately has been taken up by Mr. Clinton's admirers. On one television chat show, Georgetown law Professor Paul Rothstein, with rare passion in his voice, pleaded with both sides in the case to do the ''patriotic'' thing and settle the matter before trial.
Mr. Rothstein's concern was not so much political as aesthetic: He did not make the argument that Mr. Clinton's full attention to his work is vital to the peace of the world; but he did suggest that the public character of any courtroom drama would strike a mortal blow against national dignity. Days, if not weeks, of testimony about Mr. Clinton's career as a philanderer -- complete with lurid details -- are too awful to contemplate.
Indeed they are, but it is difficult to imagine an alternative. Any pretrial settlement would presume Mr. Clinton's culpability, and he has sworn under oath that Ms. Jones' claim is without merit.
It is interesting to note that the president's official attitude has undergone a subtle transformation. In the beginning, he and his minions insisted Ms. Jones was a liar, intent on mortifying Mr. Clinton for political purposes. Now, slightly less confident, he professes ignorance: He has no recollection of meeting Ms. Jones in that Little Rock, Ark., hotel room 6 1/2 years ago. Failed memories are a hallmark of the Clinton White House, but this posture does give the president some wiggle room.
