IF YOU BELIEVE the polls, President William Jefferson Clinton does have his supporters. And while I have no use for the Mr. Coolidge Effect of 1998, it may be edifying to hear from some of the president's loyalists.

A handwritten letter came from one Clinton supporter who signed the missive "LSK."

"I have a question for you," LSK began. "If Clinton were a Republican president would all this comedy be going on? The Republicans have been after Clinton since 1992, also Mr. Starr who hates Clinton with a passion. I have not read about Newt [Gingrich] ... lying in your column -- or Reagan and Bush -- the guys who put this country $3 trillion in debt. You have said nothing about Hyde, Livingstone and the rest of the shady Republicans." Dear LSK: It would be a lot easier answering it if I could have read the whole thing. Your penmanship left me temporarily visually impaired. I implore you to get a typewriter, word processor or computer.

Your letter implies I have never criticized conservatives and/or Republicans. The fact is I have, but since you brought it up, I'll take this opportunity to criticize both parties for what they failed to do during the House of Representatives impeachment debate. No one, it seems, wanted to bring up the real issue that should have led to Clinton's impeachment: the claim that he altered this country's policy toward China in exchange for foreign campaign contributions. Ken Starr weakly investigated the allegation and Congress hardly at all. That leaves me suspicious of everybody's motives.

Daniel Menefee wrote a letter answering the question of why Clinton is hated.

"WJC is an affront to the white ruling class," Menefee wrote. "The remnants of the WWII generation, that wants to let big business eat cake and maintain an all-white heterosexual male power base, is struggling with the changing demographic makeup of the American landscape. While WJC believes it strengthens us, Republicans see inclusion and diversity as their enemy. WJC thought twice about a senseless war and he experimented, like I'm sure many Republicans did in the '60s, with POT. He came from a non-traditional household [with problems] and his mother had a loud personality.

"Hillary is an independent thinker and an innovator on issues such as health care and education; again going against the hard line status quo who can afford health care, private schools, and believe a First Lady's place is one that is more docile. WJC took on the biggest drug peddlers in America [tobacco] which caused the biggest proponent of tobacco to rear his ugly head in defense of not just tobacco, but the White Anglo-Saxon ruling class. If the Republicans say they're for diversity one can only look at their 99 percent all-white male fraternity screaming righteous indignation over an issue they themselves have probably been a party to. The Republicans say it is not about sex and they are absolutely right.

"It's about 'payback.' Hillary Rodham walked into the House chamber in 1974 with evidence that conclusively proved that Nixon used agencies of the government to thwart and derail his political adversaries. Many Republicans voted against impeachment for these heinous acts because they believed it would hurt the country. Many of these same Republicans in 1998 now find lying about sex more repulsive than using agencies of the government to smear political opponents."

Uh, Dan, remember the FBI files on Republican political appointees that ended up in Clinton's White House? Clinton's folks deny they were used for political purposes, but their boss has already told us he's lied to us before. Why should we believe him on this matter?

Remember Lani Guinier? You describe yourself "as a white male who believes in the Clinton presidency ... inclusion, diversity, affordable health care and education." So you should remember Guinier, who proposed election policies already used here and in other democratic countries that might lead to more diversity and empowerment of the powerless. You remember what WJC did when Guinier, his nominee for a powerful civil rights post, came under attack from those horrible Republicans, don't you Dan?

Dan? Dan? Anybody there?

The main problem with your letter, Dan, is that it implies Clinton has some rock-solid principals he'll always stand by. The truth is, doesn't.

Pub Date: 12/23/98