From the time he was re-elected President two years ago, William Jefferson Clinton has been fretting about how historians will view his legacy. One model he fancied was Theodore Roosevelt's use of the "bully pulpit" to push through wide-ranging domestic reforms.
But today Bill Clinton must be stricken as he joins Richard Nixon and Andrew Johnson as only the third US President to endure the humiliation of an impeachment investigation.
In 1996 Mr Clinton became the first Democratic President to be re-elected to a second term since Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936. Today he is the first Democratic President to be faced with the possibility of an ignominious impeachment and dismissal from office.
A subdued Mr Clinton is taking a philosophical, almost fatalistic view of this development. "It is not in my hands, it is in the hands of Congress and the people of this country - ultimately in the hands of God. There is nothing I can do," he said soon after the vote for the inquiry.
Behind the scenes, the President, his wife Hillary and Vice-President Al Gore had worked to try and head off an impeachment inquiry, telling members of Congress that what he had done in the Monica Lewinsky affair did not qualify as the "high crimes and misdemeanours" which would warrant impeachment.
But the vote in the House of Representatives on Thursday to open the impeachment inquiry has taken the matter away from the White House. The Constitution does not give any role in an impeachment process to the President beyond being its target.
But Mr Clinton is a moving target. Republicans who voted overwhelmingly to open the inquiry are well aware that this is only the start of the process and that the President's chances of survival are still quite good given the stiff conditions that must be met before a President is impeached and convicted of high crimes and misdemeanours.
The inquiry will be handled by the House Judiciary Committee whose chairman, Mr Henry Hyde, has promised to try and wrap it up by the end of the year. At that stage the committee must decide whether to draw up articles of impeachment of the President based on the Starr report and future hearings or decide that there is not sufficient evidence and advise the House of this.
If the committee does draw up articles of impeachment accusing the President, say, of committing perjury and/or obstructing justice, the full House would then vote by simple majority whether or not to impeach the President. If it does vote for impeachment, this is still not the end of the line for Mr Clinton, and even Americans get confused about this.
Impeachment by the House does not mean the dismissal from office of the President but rather an indictment that he has committed a grave offence for which he would then be tried by the Senate. But he could only be convicted if two-thirds or more of the 100 senators find him guilty. The conventional wisdom among Republicans as well as Democrats at this time is that there would not be such a majority to dismiss the President on the basis of offences arising from his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Impeachment by the House is more likely as it has a 22-member Republican majority and some of the 31 Democrats who voted with the Republicans this week might also vote for impeachment. But here contingency enters in.
If Mr Hyde cannot wrap up his committee's inquiry before the end of the year, a new Congress takes over on January 3rd. The Republicans might have an even bigger majority depending on the outcome of the midterm elections on November 3 so the impeachment process could grind on. But the election results will be seen as a barometer of public opinion which the politicians will study closely.
Polls already show that the public is tired of the Monica Lewinsky scandal and a majority is against impeachment. Small Republican gains in the elections would reinforce this view and the option of censuring or rebuking the President instead of going ahead with impeachment would be seriously considered by the Republicans.
The President adverted to this indirectly when he said that his fate rested with "the people of this country" as well as Congress and ultimately God. What he meant was that the Republicans could still be in for a bad surprise next month if they misjudge the mood of the country.
The ideal scenario for the Republicans would be to have the President impeached in the House and then have a plea bargain for a harsh rebuke instead of proceeding to a trial in the Senate with an uncertain outcome. That way a humiliated and lame duck President damages the prospects of Vice-President Gore for the election in 2000 when the Republicans hope to re-take the White House and pledge to clean it up.
For Mr Clinton, survival at any price is now the name of the game. But the price will be high as Republicans re-hash in the Hyde committee just what he did with Monica Lewinsky to see if Mr Kenneth Starr's perjury allegations stand up. Most Americans cringe at the thought of it.
