THE PATHOLOGY OF HATE-CLINTON GROUPS

KENNETT, Mo. -- The ongoing cottage industry that has been spawned by numerous activities of the nation's immediate past president and his wife is still struggling to stay alive, although there are a few encouraging signs the captains of this enterprise may someday exhaust their supply of vitriol. Heaven only knows what they will fill their columns and commentaries with then.

Even before l'affaire Monica, Bill and Hillary Clinton were the objects of scorn from a vast number of writers, pundits, observers and second-guessers who ranted and raved about much that the husband and wife team had done in Arkansas and then in Washington. Both were subjected to an inordinate amount of research that reached a degree never before seen in the U.S., except perhaps during events leading to a Watergate scandal.

The Clintons arrived at the White House early in 1993 with an untold number of conservative enemies looking into every cranny of their lives, and whether it was Bill's affinity for a pretty face or Hillary's billing practices as a Little Rock lawyer, nothing was sacred.

One columnist spent days checking out a rumor their young daughter was illegitimate and apparently was dissuaded from filing a column on the object without a shred of corroborative evidence and stern warnings from his employer's lawyer.

None of this in any way excuses the known excesses of our last former president. He was guilty of unacceptable behavior with a White House intern. He attempted to cover up this incident by lying, although this sin is closely connected to the first and is the usual path taken by straying husbands.

What on Earth either of the Clintons was thinking when they illegally liberated some of the furnishings of the White House is beyond comprehension. It would seem to most Americans that those departing the confines of this historic home and office would want to enhance its surroundings, not detract from them.

And the former president's decision to lease some of the highest priced real estate in the overvalued Manhattan commercial district, billing taxpayers for a sizable share of the space, is another case of convoluted judgment.

Having noted these grievous errors, and expressed lack of approval for all of them, let it also be said that the former chief executive and first lady have been the targets of some of the foulest journalism ever practiced in America since the early days of the presidency.

There have been virulent attacks by the press that targeted Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, but none could compare with the incessant drumbeat of the hate-Clinton crowd.

Some writers and commentators are relative newcomers to the fray, arriving on the scene only after the bimbo brigade began trashing the former Arkansas governor.

Others have devoted their adult years to dissing the Clintons and continue to this very day.

So obsessed are some critics that it is possible to read on many daily editorial pages more columns devoted to the sins of Bill and Hillary than the early accomplishments of our new president. For some journalists, it is more important to discuss the failings of the 42nd president than the problems facing the 43rd. The logic of this escapes normal citizens who believe our sometimes-fragile democracy is best served by a well informed electorate rather than a gang of drooling redneck hatemongers intent only on lynching their victim.

To say that Bill Clinton is not perfect is to state the obvious. The man is driven by certain instincts that are not worthy of a president of the world's greatest nation. Yet in the discussion of Clinton's less-than-righteous side, there is seldom an admission that he devoted great energy and even vision to his job in the oval office. This was often accomplished under great strain created by the columnists and commentators whose public agenda is to improve the quality of governance but whose hidden agenda is the destruction of a liberal president who accomplished a great deal.

One has to ask: Who are the real trespassers of our democracy?

The former president has promised he will devote his energies to an active life of public service, perhaps in the ways chosen by one of his predecessors, the much maligned Jimmy Carter. The latter's efforts on behalf of human rights and orderly government in several parts of the world have paid great dividends, and promise many more. His work in providing better living conditions for the poor is not only commendable, it is inspirational.

Jimmy Carter was the victim of untold criticism, yet he prevailed by ignoring his enemies in the media and succeeded despite their intense efforts to belittle him. Our own Harry Truman was caricatured by his journalistic critics as an unsophisticated, narrow-minded bankrupt who was incapable of making even one great decision while making far more of them than he received credit for. It was Truman who set the early stage for the downfall of world communism. And his determination to the administer government for the benefit of the greatest number will serve as a beacon for America's future leaders.

Bill Clinton's presidency had its faults, its mistakes and its excesses, but it also brought Americans a new respect for the ability of compassionate leadership to change ordinary lives for the better despite the harshest of criticism and incessant badgering.

For many citizens, the Clinton years are now history. For those who still obsess over the egregious features, many would say: Get a life and a honest perspective.

Many Americans are tired of critics holding public officials to higher standards than their harshest detractors set for themselves and those who make up their jaundiced fan clubs.

~Jack Stapleton is the editor of Missouri News and Editorial Service.