A poll was taken last week on the day Congress released the 22 hours of private conversations between Monica Lewinsky and her erstwhile friend and colleague, Linda Tripp. It asked if the voice of the former White House intern sounded as people thought it would.

Eleven percent thought that the voice did indeed sound as they had imagined; 5% thought it did not; while a staggering 84% said they couldn't care less.

The American public is suffering from chronic scandal fatigue, and a clear majority wants to put this whole sordid episode behind it.

The independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr's marathon 12 hours of testimony before the House Judiciary Committee did little to revive interest. In truth, it seems to have had the complete reverse effect.

Barring some catastrophic new revelation, President Bill Clinton will not be forced from office. As the results of the congressional mid-term elections so clearly demonstrated, the public has no stomach for impeachment, and the Republicans would be unable to muster the 67 Senate votes necessary to convict him of an impeachable offence.

With their lead in the House of Representatives cut to 11 seats, they would struggle even to gain a simple majority in favour of impeachment. Without it, the process would progress no further.

The talk in Washington is therefore of exit strategies: of how the Republican Party can extricate itself from this sorry, and at times excruciatingly dull, saga.

The censure of the president seems to be the favoured option of moderate Republicans and Democrats alike. Despite the fact that many lawyers and historians doubt the constitutional basis for such a move, both Houses of Congress would pass some sort of motion condemning the president's actions.

Censure would then most likely be accompanied by a fine - possibly the $4m it is said to have cost independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr to investigate the president's affair with his former White House intern.

Mr Clinton would then be invited, or compelled, to appear on Capitol Hill to lay bare his soul, and to apologise for his affair with "that woman".

For Republicans and Democrats who are adamant that the president should not escape without some form of reprimand, yet who do not feel that his actions warrant impeachment, this would bring the matter to a satisfactory and expeditious conclusion.

As Senator Joseph Lieberman told the Washington Post: "The president has accepted responsibility, apologised, and begun a process of atonement ... But I still think it ought to end - for the sake of history and our children - with some statement by Congress about the unacceptability of what the president did."

The prospect of criminal charges being brought against the president when he leaves office in January, 2001, is also being considered.

Allegations of perjury and obstruction may not qualify as the "high crimes and misdemeanours" necessary to remove a president from office, so the argument goes, but, if proven, they could be enough to secure a criminal conviction.

Or as one senator explained it: "What's the point of burning down the house to cook the turkey when you can put it in the microwave later on."

The other option, of course, is to continue with the impeachment process, and to see where it leads.

Many Republicans, especially those on the House Judiciary Committee, have been emboldened by Mr Starr's appearance before them, considering him a credible witness with a strong case to make.

They have come out strengthened in the view that President Clinton did indeed commit impeachable offences, and rather than scaling down their investigation have opted to extend it by issuing new subpoenas for further witnesses.

Henry Hyde, the silver-haired chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is thought to favour pressing on, and is against the idea of censure.

And with Bob Livingston, the Republican's new House Speaker, reluctant to express a forthright view on the matter - saying only that the full House should have a chance to vote on impeachment - many are looking to Hyde for guidance.

But even Republican die-hards will be forced eventually to grasp the political reality: that the votes are not there to impeach the president and nor is the public will.