NEWS ANALYSIS : Congressional Democrats Edging Away From Clinton : Politics: Move to hold hearings on Whitewater shows dissatisfaction with White House, observers say. President’s strategy on issue called ‘naive.’

The move by congressional Democrats toward hearings on Whitewater reflects growing dissatisfaction with White House management of the controversy and rising desire among many Democrats to distance themselves from President Clinton on the issue, legislators and party political consultants said Wednesday.

To some extent, the drive for hearings demonstrates that senior legislative Democrats believe Republicans are making gains in their argument that Congress has been joining with the White House in an attempt to avoid inquiry. Legislative and White House officials said that they agree the decision also illuminates a long-standing unwillingness among many congressional Democrats to bind their fates too closely to Clinton’s.

“I don’t think it does a lot of good necessarily to be a ‘friend of Bill’ in some of these (congressional) districts,” said one leading House moderate.

Democrats on Capitol Hill said that they have yet to see anything that belies the President’s claim that he has not done anything wrong. But the decision to accept hearings illustrated their growing belief that the White House compounded its problems by resisting each new step toward disclosure--from release of documents relating to the original investment by President Clinton and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton while Clinton was Arkansas governor, to appointment of a special prosecutor, to congressional hearings.

“It is clear that the political strategy in the White House was not succeeding, that the story had legs of its own, and it was counterproductive to try and delay,” said the House moderate. “Theirs was a naive approach.”

So far, according to congressional Democrats, the enormous press and political focus on Whitewater has not seriously slowed down other legislative activities: Major education and crime bills are moving toward completion and in the House, Democrats believe they are making progress toward compromise on the Administration’s massive health care reform plan.

Indeed, Republican strategist William Kristol warned in a memo this week that the GOP’s preoccupation with Whitewater “is keeping Republicans from being able to focus on health care at just the moment . . . when inattention to the issue is most dangerous.”

White House and congressional strategists admitted that they are uncertain whether agreeing to hearings has increased or diminished the prospect of Whitewater impeding other legislative initiatives. But it is clear that many Democrats believed resisting hearings might prove more disruptive than accepting them, with the Republicans hammering away.

Democrats acknowledged that hearings represent a roll of the dice that could open unanticipated new questions and increase public attention on the controversy. “If we get into hearings, it can be dragged out for a year, which would be a real problem,” said one senior House Democrat.

Special counsel Robert B. Fiske Jr. is looking into allegations that Clinton may have benefited improperly from his association with James B. McDougal, owner of the failed Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan and partner with the Clintons in the Whitewater Development Corp. Although Fiske’s inquiry centers on Whitewater, he also is investigating the apparent suicide of White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster last July. His inquiry also encompasses the role played by Mrs. Clinton and her firm in representing Whitewater and Madison Guaranty.

In both houses, Republicans and Democrats have just begun negotiations over the timing and scope of the hearings and over whether they will be conducted by existing committees or panels formed specifically for that purpose. House Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.) said in television interviews Wednesday that there is little prospect of joint House-Senate hearings.

The resolutions passed in both houses call for hearings that would not interfere with Fiske’s investigation. Congressional officials said that Fiske has assured them he intends to finish the Washington elements of his investigation sometime in April, which could open the door for hearings soon afterward.

The first step could be rescheduling the recently delayed House Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs Committee oversight hearings on the Resolution Trust Corp.--at which Republicans have said they intend to press questions about White House contact with investigators looking into the failure of Madison Guaranty.

“My calculus is that I would like to get this over as quickly as possible,” especially with mid-term elections approaching in the fall, said a House leadership aide.

Publicly, Administration officials from the President on down have insisted that Congress alone should decide whether to conduct hearings. But, privately, senior officials have resisted hearings, arguing that they would interfere with the special counsel’s investigation.

Until last week, the Democratic leadership in both chambers had staunchly backed the Administration’s position. But over the past week that opposition has crumbled, as greater numbers of rank-and-file Democrats have grown uneasy about resisting the GOP demands.

In the end, said the senior House Democrat, the party leadership in both houses was forced to capitulate “because they were afraid of losing a vote on the floor” if Republicans offered an amendment demanding hearings.

Congressional Democrats are not acting based on any sign that voters have focused on Whitewater or made any final judgments against the President on the controversy, political consultants and congressional aides said. “This isn’t Watergate in the sense that people are riveted by it,” said Democratic media consultant Joe Trippi.

But Democrats said they fear that prolonging the fight over hearings could eventually strengthen GOP and conservative charges that Congress was attempting to sweep Whitewater questions under the rug.

And while there was little evidence of voter anger over Whitewater, the issue’s high profile has tended to reinforce public skepticism about Washington.