This is an almost childishly incomplete analogy.

Sure, Maharaji 'like Clinton' tried to cover-up those behaviours of his that he realised would be perceived as hypocritical. That's about where the analogy ends in my opinion. Maharaji has never admitted or accounted for all those controversial things. Neither has he apologised or offered any explanation in public as far as I know. Clinton PROFUSELY has, and that is largely why he is now received so respectfully. Bill Clinton (to his great credit) was very publicly contrite about his lies. He understood something that PR apparently fails to see, that is that a president who lies to the public about their private life could and should be judged and offer an explanation. Public trust is paramount. Presidents should not be comfortable liars in private or public life. Furthermore there needs to be some safe-guard in place to discourage this. Anyone in a position of power or authority needs to be subject to some public accountability and therefore, scrutiny.
The only people who'd disagree with this are people who have something to hide. Dictators, corrupt regimes, corrupt priests and teachers (Masters maybe even) would be the first on the list to embrace Premie Responses ideals.

I've seen Bill Clinton interviewed by David Frost and he came across as a very human likeable down-to-earth man. I simply cannot imagine that Maharaji would ever submit to, or be able to handle, this kind of frank public interview. Can you PR? Maharaji's question and answer sessions are, as far as I can see, set up so as he can avoid having to talk about anything other than his 'not so human' i.e. 'unique' ability to reveal you the Knowledge of all Knowledge's. Politicians are used to being mercilessly grilled in public and ONLY if their reputations survive this do they gain respect and trust.
No, I'm sorry but Clinton is in a different league when it comes to accountability and down-to-earth honesty. I expect Maharaji thinks public accountability is innappropriate or maybe 'inadvisable' for him.

If 'Premie Response' seeks to give the impression that Maharaji is judged by ex-premies simply for his human failings (drink, drugs etc.) he really is obfuscating. I think 99% of premie critics find him wanting not for these indulgences but the way he hid(es) them whilst he was strenuously advocating a lifestyle for them which precluded all such behaviour.

Besides, as premies we all welcomed Maharaji showing his more human side. The trouble is he was ashamed of it and never really showed it to but a select few 'X-rated people'. As we know, many who did see it found that it broke the spell of respect.