The US Supreme Court decision allowing Ms Paula Jones to proceed with her sexual harassment case has cast a shadow over President Clinton's visit to Europe. In The Hague yesterday, the President spoke eloquently about the contribution of the Marshall Plan launched 50 years ago this week to the reconstruction of post war Europe. But most of the American media appeared interested only in a case which has the potential to embarrass the President and undermine his achievements.
Whatever the precise merits of Ms Jones's case, the Supreme Court has done a good day's work by rejecting the notion that a sitting president should be awarded some kind of special immunity from the legal process. Lawyers for the President had argued that he should not be subject to legal actions in relation to allegations which are unrelated to his official duties in office. They argued that a decision in favour of Ms Jones would hinder the President's day to day work and provoke a flow of vexatious complaints from political opponents. To their credit, all nine members of the court including members appointed by presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton, rejected the notion of a regal style presidency. It declared in the most direct terms that all Americans are equal before the law. Few fair minded American citizens, even those who support the President, will disagree.
In many respects, it is uneven contest: the leader of the United State against a low level state employee unkindly cast as a "trailer park bimbo" by the President's elaborate public relations team. Certainly, there will be those who will question Ms Jones's motives. The pivotal role of the conservative right in peddling the allegations will, without doubt, raise suspicions that the whole affair is politically motivated. Ms Jones's efforts to cash in on her newfound celebrity she filed the claim only after Mr Clinton became President - also do little to inspire confidence.
That said, it would be wrong to dismiss the allegations as little more than supermarket sleaze. In recent months her allegations have gained increased credibility. A lengthy analysis in one leading American legal journal noted the remarkable thread of consistency in Ms Jones's account since she first relayed details of the incident to four people almost immediately after it allegedly took place at a hotel room in Arkansas in 1991.
The choice facing the President is an invidious one. Allowing such a salacious case to proceed to trial could damage the stature of the presidency. But the alternative, a settlement with Ms Jones, would be taken by many Americans as an admission that the President of the United States, when governor of Arkansas, summoned a lowly state employee to his room and sexually harassed her.
President Clinton's best hope is that the trial judge in Arkansas will seize on one important element of the Supreme Court judgment which could allow the proceedings to be delayed if it is determined that they would unduly interfere with the President's duties. In the past, US courts have ruled that the presidential agenda should take priority in cases where Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy were each sued by private citizens. President Clinton, who is seeking a comparable place in American history and who already faces serious questions over Whitewater and election fund raising will be hoping that the courts adopt a similar view.