ean Wilentz, a history professor at Princeton and the chairman of the university's American studies program, made himself a hero to some - and a laughingstock to others - when he defended Bill Clinton during the House impeachment hearings in December 1998.
The charges against the president did not rise to the level of impeachment, Wilentz lectured the congressmen, and only ''the zealots and the fanatics'' could think they did. This was not a subject on which reasonable people could disagree. ''Vote in favor of impeachment,'' he warned the committee, and ''history will track you down and condemn you for your cravenness.''
Now Wilentz is back, and still in high dudgeon. This time his target is ''Clinton fatigue'' - the widely held belief that Americans are weary of the incumbent president and are desperate for new leaders who can speak plainly and behave honorably. In back-to-back columns for The New Republic, Wilentz slams the many commentators and editorialists who have dared to suggest that Clinton fatigue is fueling John McCain's insurgency or that Al Gore may suffer politically from his association with the president. ''An utter hoax,'' Wilentz calls such talk. ''Bloviation masquerading as political science.''
Thus, he says, The Washington Post's David Broder spouts nonsense when he writes that ''the character question'' will loom large in the campaign. Bill Kristol and David Brooks of The Weekly Standard are ''in denial'' if they honestly imagine that McCain is being buoyed by ''the swell of anti-Clinton sentiment.'' .
It is all nonsense, he fumes. Voters are not tired of Clinton. They are not looking for an antidote to his slickness. There is no fatigue, no disrepute. On the contrary: The man in the White House is stunningly popular. Unlike every other president since Harry Truman, he has not seen his popularity drop during his final years in office. ''Clinton is the great exception,'' Wilentz writes. He points to one recent opinion poll that puts the president's approval ratings at ''an astonishing 66 percent.'' Far from being fed up with Clinton, Americans love the guy - so much so, the professor argues, that were it not for the 22d Amendment, he could have won a third term.
There is just one problem with Wilentz's reading of the polls: He didn't read enough of the polls.
When it comes to Clinton's performance as president, his numbers are indeed sky-high. But when the public is asked to assess Clinton the man - and this Wilentz acknowledges only in passing - his numbers plunge below sea level.
As it happens, two scholars of public opinion have just pulled those numbers together in a paper for the American Enterprise Institute. And really, say Seymour Martin Lipset and Karlyn Bowman, there is no way around it: ''The difference between views of Clinton's performance as president and his personal character amounts to a chasm.''
Consider some of the evidence.
In a survey last June, the Pew Research Center asked, ''Would you like to see the next president have personal qualities similar to Bill Clinton, or would you like to see a president who has different personal qualities?'' Eighty-three percent said they hoped for something different; only 12 percent wanted more of the same.
''Will Clinton mostly be remembered,'' Gallup asked in 1998, ''for his accomplishments or his involvement in personal scandal?'' Scandal: 71 percent.
''Regardless of how you feel about his political views'' - Gallup again, 1999 - ''would you say you respect President Clinton, or don't you feel that way?'' Don't feel that way: 55 percent.
''Ten times during 1998,'' note Lipset and Bowman, ''ABC News and the Washington Post asked whether the statement `He has high personal moral and ethical standards' applied to Bill Clinton. No more than 3 in 10 ever said that it did.'' On 15 separate occasions, the CBS/New York Times poll asked whether the president ''shared the moral values most Americans try to live by.'' Only once did a majority say he did.
If this isn't Clinton fatigue, it is an uncanny facsimile.
Actually, some pollsters have measured Clinton fatigue - literally. The ABC/Washington Post poll asked respondents whether they agree or disagree with the statement ''I'm just plain tired of Bill Clinton.'' Last September and again last month, majorities agreed.
It is not the pundits who are in denial, not this time. Not only are Americans fed up with this president who has done so much to degrade the public discourse, they wish he had never been elected in the first place. If the 1992 election were held again, asked a Fox News poll last March, would you vote for Clinton or Bush? Remarkably, 58 percent said Bush.
Presidential campaigns are complex affairs; the 2000 race will not turn on ''Clinton fatigue'' alone. But that fatigue is unmistakable. As Americans go about the business of choosing a new president, it will be a priority for many to get the sour taste of the old one out of their mouths.
Jeff Jacoby is a Globe columnist.
