The 2000 presidential election is more than a year away, and the biggest
fear I have about this early, excessive coverage of the race is that voters
may be burned out come next November and stay home in even greater numbers.
On the plus side, it will give us a chance to judge the integrity of the
candidates.

Time will tell if the Clinton presidency will be remembered for more than
his sleaziness, but we know right now that he has changed how we look at
candidates. Before the Clinton presidency, I considered intimate questions
about candidates' personal lives to be out of bounds. But Clinton has shown
us there is a connection between personal and public life.

The next year will also give us time to weed out the hypocrites like
sanctimonious Republicans Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston. (While
criticizing Clinton's immorality, Gingrich, who es poused family values
during his campaigns, was reportedly carrying on an affair, and he is now
getting a divorce. Livingston, Gingrich's designated successor as House
speaker and a Clinton critic, admitted he had cheated on his wife
repeatedly, then resigned.) They showed we can't just consider what the
candidates claim to be; we have to look at their character to see who they are.

WHICH BRINGS US to Republican front-runner George W. Bush, who admits he's
been a bad boy but won't say exactly what he's done. In particular, he
refuses to answer ``yes'' or ``no'' about using cocaine years ago.

Does Bush believe cocaine use crosses the line (no pun intended) when
discussing his past? Well, if he becomes president, he'll be asking similar
questions about some of the people he'll be appointing to different posts.

Equally important, Clinton's Whitewater dealings taught us there are other
things beside philandering and drug use that make up character. A story
about Bush in the June issue of The American Spectator, a conservative
magazine, deals with some of those issues.

``Far more than tales of youthful drinking and carousing, the record of
Bush's rise to wealth reveals how he became what he is today,'' wrote Byron
York. ``It's a complicated tale of family connections, hard work, and sweet
deals, topped off by a taxpayer-subsidized baseball bonanza that may leave
some Republicans feeling queasy about how their candidate got rich.''

Indeed, some readers were upset.

``Why in the world do a hit piece on George W. Bush, when he is the only
candidate with a prayer of beating Al Gore?'' wrote one reader in a later
issue. ``Who gives a care about his past deeds? No one cared about what Bill
Clinton has done, and in case you haven't noticed this corrupt politician is
in the process of finishing out his second term.''

Clinton, and Richard Nixon before him, proved how unwise it is to downplay
the shortcomings of a candidate you support. We can no longer turn a blind
eye to a candidate's faults because of party loyalty or dislike of another
office seeker.

GORE HAS CHARACTER issues as well, but he's been getting off light - so far.
We still need to know if his support of Clinton can be excused as the
obligatory loyalty of a vice president. What about his flip-flop on tobacco?
What was his fundraising role in the last election, and what technological
secrets did we give to the Chinese in exchange for campaign contributions?

According to the Department of Labor, 44 percent of the nation's work force
is tested for illegal drugs as a condition of employment. Many employers
hire private detectives to conduct back ground checks on future employees.
If such thorough investigation is OK for other jobs, it's more than OK for
the presidency. Even though Clinton has done his best to disgrace it, it's
still the most powerful, important job in the world.

The probing of the future president will continue. If you get tired of it,
blame it on Clinton. That's his legacy.