SITTING PRETTY

As Republicans assembled in Dallas to renominate Ronald Reagan 12 years ago, the incumbent President had already achieved mythic status. He led his Democratic opponent, Walter Mondale, by an impressive 14 points in the opinion polls. The re-election campaign was considered to be a virtual formality. Even Reagan's opponents conceded his "magic" and had all but given up seething about it. "Not since Dwight Eisenhower," wrote TIME in its convention issue, "has the U.S. public felt such fondness for its leader." TIME's Hugh Sidey declared of Reagan, "He is a refrain from Stars and Stripes Forever."

It is safe to predict that none of the thousands of journalists in Chicago this week to witness the renomination of Bill Clinton will choose that particular metaphor, or anything like it, to describe this year's incumbent President. Nor will anyone try to make the case--with a straight face--that Americans in general are particularly "fond" of their leader. Clinton faces a sullen press corps, a larger public that tolerates him at best, and a sizable opposition that despises him with extraordinary passion. Meanwhile, he lacks even a medium-size cadre of genuine enthusiasts. He doesn't have a single reliable journalistic hagiographer, though Reagan had a dozen. Indeed, do you know a single American citizen of any profession who is a real Clinton swooner, like the millions who swooned for Reagan? There are a few, but most of them work for him.

In 1984 people talked of Reagan's magic and meant it as a compliment. Today people talk of Clinton's trickery, and do not mean to be flattering. Reagan's rhetorical skills made him the "Great Communicator" (good); Clinton's make him "Slick Willie" (bad). These are journalists' characterizations, but the perception is widely shared, fairly or unfairly, by the public.

Even at the time of his first nomination four years ago, Clinton generated more electricity than he does today. Journalists were still impressed by his doggedness, his intelligence and policy enthusiasm, his charm. The newly acquainted public warmed to his family and his life story.

Although Clinton won the 1992 election with only 43% of the vote, there were moments of popular enthusiasm--such as that first postconvention bus tour--that are difficult to imagine this year. During Reagan's first four years, widespread suspicion melted into widespread affection. During Clinton's, something like the opposite has happened.

Yet Bill Clinton in 1996 has one amazing thing in common with Ronald Reagan in 1984: he is considered overwhelmingly likely to be re-elected. Clinton now leads in polls by nearly as much as Ronald Reagan did at his renomination in 1984. Despite Bob Dole's convention bounce, the pundits remain just as convinced that Clinton will beat Dole as they were that Reagan would beat Mondale. The polls and pundits could be wrong, of course, but the evidence is striking. People tell pollsters that they don't approve of Clinton's character or believe in his truthfulness but that they intend to vote for him anyway.

So this is the Clinton mystery: How can a president who arouses so little popular enthusiasm appear so likely to win re-election? If people don't like Clinton much or trust him much or respect him much, why are they so willing to vote for him?