The Clinton Dilemma.

Until the last pardon-driven 48 hours of the Clinton administration, I had a rule about late Twentieth Century American politics. Call it the Reagan/Clinton Rule. During the 1980's, no matter what your instincts told you, Iran-Contra and all, when all was said and done, Ronald Reagan always won.

The same seemed true for Bill Clinton. Your political instincts told you ("I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.") this was it: The President's credibility was shattered; his poll ratings would soon enter freefall status. Yet things never turned out as expected. After the massive 1994 GOP congressional sweep, most of established Washington figured Clinton to be a one-termer. Yet when all was said and done, he always won.

Washington is at it again, writing off Clinton at a time when the Democratic Party is scrambling to de-Clintonize itself. The perception is that Clinton will soon join George McGovern, hanging out sadly mid-afternoon in Washington (and Harlem) restaurants in search of friends and former colleagues.

Sounds logical, but don't bet on it. Bill Clinton will be back. Even with mind-boggling tawdriness and stupidity, our ex-President knows he still appears tantalizingly larger than life in a Democratic Party of political pygmies.

Don't forget too that Clinton came to power during a prosperous period of global tolerance for sleaze. Voters looked at the scandals of Helmut Kohl and now Jacques Chirac with apparent nonchalance. Their accepted reasoning: What else would you expect of creatures so low on the food chain? The tragedy in the case of Clinton is that his extraordinary sense for the nuance of the tactical workings of politics has in large part been wasted.

The question then is how best to utilize the Clinton persona, once our ex-President begins the process of redemption before his grand reentry. The question involves the politics of penance.

When the Grand Pardoner re-emerges, both President Bush and the Democratic leadership (which has much to lose with a Clinton rebirth) should initiate some political jujitsu (taking your opponent's greatest strength and using it to your advantage). In this case, however, using Clinton's greatest strength might produce some good for the world. They should ask our ex-President to take on an impossible task requiring almost superhuman tactical and persuasive skills. He is talking about a trip to Africa. In a gesture of one-upmanship, they should ask Mr. Clinton to become the Africa Czar for the G7 industrialized nations.

Africa is the forgotten death continent. Want to bring all conversation to an uncomfortable halt at your next World Bank cocktail party? Talk about the political, economical, and physical destruction across the southern quadrant of Africa. Suggest the World Bank leadership drop everything and launch an emergency assault.

Economist Jeffrey Sachs, a TIE contributor, suggests that confronting the African AIDS epidemic entails a price tag of 5 to 10 billion dollars. In other words, a mere chip shot for a human fundraising vacuum cleaner of Bill Clinton's caliber (no percentage contingency fees, please).

Of course, the African continent is in desperate need of a larger strategic vision to deal with each country's economic and political differences. That's why the Africa Czar must be larger-than-life, an international superstar with extraordinary powers of persuasion. Needed is a leader with nothing to lose, an individual in search of redemption after a humiliating exodus from public office.

Bill Clinton claims "Pardongate" is a bum rap and that narcissism is not the driving motivation in his life. Now there's a way he can prove it.