But in his testimony, Olson was the model of temperance. Rather than accept Feinstein's estimation that his work was "somewhat harsh and biting," Olson preferred to characterize his articles as "hard-hitting." He also noted that he was merely the coauthor of the 1994 piece, and then dissembled about his intent. That article "talked about potential -- not necessarily, not crimes that had been committed, but the potential crimes that could arguably have been implicated by the conduct that had been reported," he said.

Olson put on the soft-focus lens when discussing another chapter in his anti-Clinton crusade, his representation of Whitewater witness David Hale, which began in 1993. Hale, formerly a judge in Little Rock, Ark., had claimed that then Gov. Clinton had pressured him into making an illegal $300,000 payment to Clinton's partners in the Whitewater land deal. When Hale was called to testify before Congress, Olson represented him.

Though ranking minority member Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont asked whether that action proved that Olson was an irreversible partisan, Olson characterized his relationship with Hale as almost an act of charity. "Mr. Hale agreed to pay our fees," Olson said, denying that his firm was reimbursed for its work by Scaife. "As it turns out, he was not able to pay his legal fees." Olson went on to say that he had never been paid for that work, and jokingly invited anyone in the hearing room to ante up on Hale's behalf.

When Leahy finally started asking questions about Olson's role in the Arkansas Project, it was after 4 p.m. and the hearing room was nearly empty. Most of the audience and reporters had long since left. That, according to a source close to the Democrats on the panel, was part of a Republican plan to slip Olson into his solicitor general post with the minimum of attention.

During the hearing, several Democrats noted with irritation that the confirmation hearing had been scheduled for the same day that the Bush budget plan was being debated on the floor, and just a few working hours before the body would be recessing for the spring holidays. Furthermore, Olson shared his confirmation hearing with Larry Thompson, an affable Georgia attorney whom Bush picked for deputy attorney general, further diminishing the time available to pick at Olson's record. Even the location, at the end of a rat-maze walk in the Senate building's basement, seemed designed to discourage the attention of the press and the public.

That list of grievances, along with the general perception that Republicans won't play nice on judicial nominations, put Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., in a particularly foul mood. Ostensibly questioning Thompson on the need for bipartisan cooperation in judicial matters, Schumer said that the administration's efforts so far have fallen short of his expectations. "I have to tell you, we've been off to an inauspicious start in this regard," he said. "But I can tell you, speaking only for myself, I'm not going to be rolled over on this."

The Democrats have one final hope: Olson has been asked to respond to written questions from both sides by the end of the spring recess on April 22. This final procedural move will allow Democrats to probe deeper into Olson's Scaife-associated past, according to one Democratic Senate source. Yet at this point, it appears a major controversy would be required to derail Olson's nomination. Even liberal champion Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said he planned to vote in favor of Olson. Hatch is pushing for a final decision by April 26.

Recent Stories