CLINTON TESTIMONY A MONDAY DIVERSION

Watching and listening to President Clinton's grand-jury testimony about his affair with Monica Lewinsky was a favorite diversion Monday morning.

Small groups throughout the area hovered over television sets, radios or computer display screens to hear details once again. But this time they could watch the president testify.

What most watched were Clinton's actions as he answered questions from Kenneth Starr's attorneys. Some viewers thought Clinton held up well under unrelenting questions; others felt he was fidgety, evasive and uncooperative.

Different Americans saw the report with different eyes.

Some felt the showing of the tapes were a waste of money and time -- four hours of time.

Others felt the entire affair could backfire on Republicans.

"It's just political," said one student who viewed the tapes at Southeast Missouri State University. "But it could backfire."

Mitchel Gerber of the university's political science department agreed.

"I didn't get to see all of the program," said Gerber, who was teaching classes much of the morning. "I'll definitely watch the program later today or tonight."

Gerber said he was surprised at some of the footage, which was shown on all the major television networks.

"I had been led to believe that the president was nervous and uncooperative," said Gerber. "Granted, I did not get to see the entire tapes, but Clinton appeared to have good mannerisms, and he came across very well."

Gerber also agreed the tapes could backlash on Republicans. People, he said, have a way of rooting for the underdog, "And right now Clinton appears to be in the underdog position," he said.

Some Americans may feel that there has been an invasion of privacy and overkill, said Gerber.

"In either case, the American people are growing tired of the entire thing," said Gerber. "They are fed up and want to go on."

David Barklage of Cape Girardeau, a Republican political consultant, said Congress had to make the tapes public.

"I think Congress felt obligated to let the public see the testimony for themselves," said Barklage. "The tapes may not have been as dramatic as previously indicated, but I do think there was a clear pattern of evasiveness on the part of the president."

This is natural whether it be the president or another individual, said Barklage.

"My own feeling is that nothing should be held back," he said. "It's better that the public see the evidence."

Peter J. Bergerson of the university's political science department said he didn't have an opportunity to see the tapes. "I listened to some of them, but not enough to comment," said Bergerson.

But in talking with people who watched the tapes, Bergerson said he got the impression that Clinton was not as confrontational and angry as news reports before the tape's airing made him out to be."

A number of small groups around Cape Girardeau watched the tapes, but those who watched didn't want to be quoted.

Some said they tired of more details but still watched. Some said the president did well in his testimony.

"They just kept asking the same questions over and over," said one viewer. "But he seemed calm and focused."

Some viewers said the tapes might be good for the president.

"I's not a Clinton fan," said one. "But you have to feel sorry for him. You wouldn't think that anyone would have to go through an ordeal like that."