I'm not entirely convinced. The problem is that even a lot of Republicans, myself included, feel that the whole Enron mess must be investigated fully. It's not that we expect the White House to be implicated (quite the opposite), but there seems to be a strong possibility that crimes were committed at Enron, and at Andersen, and that a lot of regular folks like you and me suffered as a result.
So, the problem is this: No one cares about the Clintons and Enron, simply because the president out of power is considered boring in the media. (And despite the lefty bias of most media, I believe this would be true even if the outgoing administration had been Republican.) So, the focus will be on Bush and Cheney as far as the government ties that Enron had are concerned.
Conventional wisdom is that the cover up is always worse than the crime. In fact, the appearance of a cover up can wreak damage on an administration even if the evidence is ultimately exculpatory. So what does this mean?
Well, first of all, it means that Cheney has to suck it up and provide the info about Enron's participation in the energy policy. I don't think there's anything there, but every day he resists, terrible damage is done to the President and his administration in the eyes of the public. Full disclosure is the only way to stop unfounded attacks.
And it doesn't stop there. A lot of documents are going to have to come out that the White House doesn't want to release, and there may be a price to pay. But the price to pay for not releasing them is much, much higher, politically speaking.