BILL CLINTON has a lot to hide.

Of course, no one except the five-term Arkansas governor himself can truthfully and clearly answer long standing questions about his fidelity. Or lack of it.

But one thing is clear--a totally innocent person would not duck questions the way Clinton, who announced his candidacy for the White House last Thursday, has for months--and even years.

Still, no one is perfectly clean. George Bush surely isn't. Hell, George Washington wasn't. And you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in between without a moral failing or two. Besides, it doesn't seem that Clinton is all that guilty.

TO LITTLE ROCK residents, the adultery accusations are old hat. You hear the rumors all the time. They range from trifling indiscretions (Clinton on the State Capitol steps smooching a heavily made up young secretary) to bald-faced immorality (Clinton committing adultery and fathering illegitimate children).

And then there are the denials. No reputable national reporters have had the gumption to ask Clinton direct questions about the allegations. (At least not yet. You can bet the next few months will witness a feeding frenzy.)

When I asked Michael Gauldin, temporary press secretary to the campaign, if there was any validity to the reports, the initial response was "What the heck do you want to know that for?"

Sam Donaldson broached the scarlet letter issue on the August 18 broadcast of "This Week With David Brinkley," but he let Clinton get away with a dodge. "I won't answer any general 'have you ever' questions," Clinton said. He got away with the same answer with Bryant Gumbel on the "Today" show last week. In The New York Times, political reporter Robin Toner has glossed over the allegations as "a rumor campaign" in Arkansas.

All of this tells us little. Let's be honest here. Clinton's caginess points to skeletons. It makes sense that he would skirt "have you ever" questions only if the true answer were yes. You don't dodge a bullet unless you think it's going to hit you.

And I can't deny that I've heard extremely well substantiated rumors recently that nearly a decade ago, when the governor and his wife were on bad terms, Clinton had to use cash to "encourage" a couple of women (who had been allies before blackmailing him) to be silent.

Given this information, perhaps even the worst case scenario is right. Maybe Clinton did sleep around with anyone who asked. Maybe he fathered bastard children from El Dorado to Mountain Home. But I doubt it--for three reasons.

FIRST, CLINTON'S relationship with his wife. Bill and Hillary, an attorney with the prestigious Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, have always ascribed to a pretty liberal definition of marriage. (The governor himself has admitted--most recently last week, to a group of journalists in Washington--that their relationship has not been perfect.)

They had agreed--up until a few years ago, when they say they worked out their differences--to a so-called "open" relationship. During Clinton's first term in office, Hillary used her maiden name. Only after it became a political liability for Bill--open marriages and women's liberation don't fly in Smack-over, Ark.--did she become Mrs. William J. Clinton.

Second, with today's shark-like journalists constantly on the prowl for the next Gary Hart, no one--especially not a Rhodes Scholar like Clinton--would run for the White House and expect to get away with flagrant, numerous or recent affairs, much less illegitimate kids.

And in a state like Arkansas, where most people go to church twice on Sunday (and once on Wednesday), such behavior would not have been tolerated for the 11 years the Clinton has been governor there.