It was President Clinton's worst day since the Monica Lewinsky affair exploded last January. And it showed as he arrived on Tuesday night, red-faced and tired, for a peace award to former Senator George Mitchell.

But here in the elegant Georgetown home of his friends, the Frawley-Bagleys, he could relax for the first time since hearing Ms Lewinsky was going to swear they had a sexual relationship thus threatening his presidency. Because here he was among his most loyal supporters, well-heeled Irish-American Democrats who had paid $1000 (about £677) to see him honour Mr Mitchell.

As influential Clinton supporters such as senators Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd and Pat Leahy mingled with the 120 guests and as a group from Riverdance harped and sang Irish airs, worrying news came from the White House. The president had been ill all day and had risen from his sick bed to preside at the ceremony in the US Capitol honouring the two dead police officers killed there last Friday.

He would do his best to come to give Mr Mitchell his peace prize, a striking bog oak figure symbolising peace and justice, but there was no certainty, the aide said.

But he did come, preceded by his secret service bodyguards although there was no security check on guests as they arrived. He would be safe among the Irish, wouldn't he? And there was no White House press corps to pester him with Monica questions. A White House liaison woman button-holed this correspondent to say I should regard myself as a "guest" and forget about notes. Well, up to a point, Lord Copper.

As he listened to the welcoming speeches, the president's watchful, unsmiling pose gradually relaxed and as he was introduced by Niall O'Dowd, publisher of the Irish Voice he joked: "At last, one journalist in the world who approves of me."

The Irish-Americans cheered and showed he was their hero no matter how the Washington scribes were delving into his relationship with Ms Lewinsky. Without President Clinton there would not have been a Belfast Agreement, George Mitchell told the crowded room and he should know.

But the president is facing a more cruel world than the admiration of Irish-American Democrats. Even they wondered as they listened if he could survive this latest crisis.

Following Ms Lewinsky's immunity deal with independent counsel, Mr Kenneth Starr, the President and his lawyers face what the New York Times called "excruciating problems" if he has been less than truthful in his previous public and sworn statements.

As a former prosecutor, Mr John Barrett, describes the President's future grand jury testimony: "Assuming sex happened with Ms Lewinsky, he goes in there and perjures himself again or confesses to prior perjury in the Jones deposition."

In an editorial, the New York Times actually urges the president to "correct" previous perjured statements and then get on with the job of building a decent legacy in his remaining 29 months of office.

As the most influential newspaper in the US puts it: "The first task, of course, is to correct any perjured statements he may have made. There is danger of playing into Mr Starr's hands or starting a drumbeat for resignation. But as a political matter, it is hard to imagine a grand jury or the House of Representatives denying a contrite President one chance to correct his testimony on a matter not related to national security."

This is high risk stuff indeed. But polls show that most Americans believe the president was lying when he told them solemnly on TV, while wagging his finger at the media for emphasis, that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman - Ms Lewisnky."

So the public might buy the "correcting perjury" line but would a Republican Congress if it gets a report from Mr Starr in the coming months accusing a sitting president of perjury in an election year? That is the "excruciating problem" for Mr Clinton and his personal lawyer, Mr David Kendall.

Under the Constitution, a President cannot be dragged before a criminal court but he can be impeached by Congress if there is evidence of a crime such as perjury or obstruction of justice.

The White House press secretary, Mr Mike McCurry, is sticking doggedly to the line in his briefings that the president was telling the truth when he denied any sex with Ms Lewinsky. Can the President afford to cut the feet from under him and other White House aides by backtracking on this denial to save his presidency?

Will public opinion continue to be tolerant of presidential adultery if Ms Lewinsky not only tells a grand jury they had sex but that they discussed together how to cover it up by denials, getting rid of presents he gave her and using his secretary, Ms Betty Currie, as their alibi?

It is widely reported from the usual "legal sources" that Ms Lewinsky will testify to all this in return for immunity.

Some advisers urge the president to stick to his original denial at all cost. After all, as Mr McCurry challenged the press this week, how do any of us know what Ms Lewinsky will really say apart from what the the famous "legal sources" claim?

Besides, Ms Lewinsky's credibility is low level and the famous Linda Tripp tapes when heard in their entirety may show more fantasising than kiss-and-tell. So the president can yet say to Mr Starr: "Do what you like. I am the president. I did not have sex with Ms Lewinsky so now let me get back to work for the American people."

And the Irish people. He spoke to his Irish-American audience with feeling about how he decided to try and break through the "paralysis" in which he found US policy over Northern Ireland due in part to the attitude of "our friends across the sea" as he tactfully described previous British governments.

He had "made a few mistakes as president but one of the smartest things I did was to send George Mitchell to Ireland". Now he is returning to Ireland but under the shadow of "that woman".