Which side are you on?

Forget the stain-status of the infamous Gap dress, the most intriguing mystery of the Clinton-Lewinsky brouhaha thus far has been the sharp differences in opinion it has wrought among scandal watchers. Some folks think the president is a piggish reprobate who lacks "the moral authority" to lead the nation; others agree that Bill made a foolish, distasteful error in judgment, but don't understand what all the fuss is about. But what exactly drives a person into one camp or the other?

Antagonistic

Pious baby boomers. Having grown up during the age of Aquarius, many boomers took advantage of the free-lovin' sexual atmosphere to sow plenty of wild oats before marriage. As such, they now have little understanding of or sympathy for marital infidelity.

Lazy journalists. For 10 months now, droves of reporters, TV chat shows, and even entire networks have been suckling at the teat of The Bill and Monica Show. As such, it's in many journalists' self interest to treat every accusation, allegation, and X-rated rumor about Bimbroglio as a grave matter worthy of serious discussion and dissection. After all, should the Clinton-Lewinsky gravy train end, reporters might actually have to cover stories that require more leg work than camping out on the White House lawn or in front of the D.C. court house.

Legalists. Breed 1. Those so litigious they would make a crime of the president's legal (albeit idiotic) sexcapades, and his possible attempts to conceal said misbehavior from his wife, his daughter, and the rest of the nation. As Adam Gopnik wrote in a February essay for the New Yorker, what the French find most amusing about I'affaire Lewinsky is that Americans consider either charge--the sex or the lying about sex--worthy of legal action: "In America ... as the French see it, every lapse must now have a legal remedy, and the millennium will have arrived only when all social existence has become litigable, and everything wronged--from vegetables to women--has a way to find vindication in a court of law."

Non-horny. Those who have never been a prisoner of their hormones cannot be to forgive or even fathom a president who has repeatedly risked everything for his.

The hellfire-and-brimstone faithful. Sure, we expected Gary Bauer and the GOP-Christian right to come out blazing, but even traditional Dems and FOBs have cited their religious upbringings as coloring their take on the scandal. A recent Washington Times piece linked some pointed public Clinton-bashing to the religion of former White House staffers Leon Panetta, Dee Dee Myers, and George Stephanopoulos, as well as journalists Maureen Dowd, Michael Kelly, Chris Matthews, Mary McGrory, Cokie Roberts, Tim Russert, and Mark Shields. Stephanopoulous is Greek Orthodox; the rest are Catholic.

Far from a simple case of impeach-the-bastard right-wingers vs. stand-by-your-man Democrats, dividing lines on Zippergate don't necessarily follow party lines. Even moderate, normally like-minded folks have staked out polar-opposite positions on this issue. Ever in search of answers, the Monthly set out to identify some of the major factions within each camp. The result: a decidedly unscientific (yet wildly insightful) breakdown of Clinton antagonists and sympathizers.

Sympathetic

Horny. A subtle bond may have formed between the president and individuals who either now or in their younger days have themselves been obsessed with sexual delights. Even if they never acted on their obsession, folks unable to resist ogling a shapely gam may be less inclined to condemn the president for taking advantage of all the opportunities afforded him. As one sympathetic observer joked, "What's the point of being the ultimate Alpha Male if you can't spread your seed around?"

The old folks. Unlike disapproving boomers, seniors who came of age before the sexual revolution had fewer opportunities to sample life's sexual smorgasbord before tying the knot. Thus, they may better understand the lure of the forbidden fruit.

The fairer sex? There are a couple of possible explanations for surveys showing that women are more understanding of Clinton's peccadillos than their male counterparts. One is political: Women may be more apt to downplay, excuse, or overlook the personal stupidity of a president who has worked to place women in top administration posts and promoted women-friendly policies.

The other explanation is purely personal, and wildly cynical: Women have a radically lower opinion of the male gender than men do. The notion that men--even self-professed liberal, enlightened men--know better than to make a play for a hot babe less than half their age is something far too many women know first-hand to be absurd. (In fact, it might be fun to survey pretty young Hill staffers to see which of our morally outraged congressional leaders have themselves thrown a pass or two.)

Legalists. Breed 2. The term "legally correct" was brought to us by the same folks who gave us such letter-of-the-law side-splitters as "no controlling legal authority."

The "judge not lest ye be judged" faithful. Those who adhere to the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" philosophy. (And then, of course, there's the esteemed Reverend Jesse Jackson, who has proclaimed our philanderer-in-chief a modern day King David.)