Kenneth Starr, Clinton’s Book

Re “Starr Mixes Ambition, Judicious Style,” Jan. 27: It has disturbed many Americans that a very partisan Republican, Kenneth Starr, was appointed to be the second “independent” counsel for the endless Whitewater hearings. He has nothing but an ax to grind. He has big aspirations for the Supreme Court. Is this not a conflict of interest? Robert Fiske was a fair and unbiased counsel. Was that why he was replaced?

Taxpayers want more for their $30 million than pure politics on its dirtiest, nastiest level. I hope the Republicans remember to add that to their campaign contribution total! Three years should be enough for any investigation.

VIRGINIA KELLY

Santa Ana

* Thank you, Alexander Cockburn (Column Left, Jan. 26) for explaining so completely why I find Hillary Rodham Clinton and the power she wields so terrifying. That a woman with such undeniable intellectual gifts could still have such blind faith in her “village,” when proof of the failure of 50 years of social engineering is so abundant, is indeed scary.

MARY LOU GRAFF

Arcadia

* What is it about Hillary Clinton that makes pompous males like Cockburn so hysterical? I realize that Cockburn comes from that particular age and thinking of misogynist, self-important male intellectuals that hated supremely intelligent women. Certainly they wanted their women associates to be intelligent, in order to be able to better appreciate their endless nattering; but woe betide those women who were smarter than they were.

Even in this day, this I believe is what is at the bottom of the mindless hatred of Hillary Clinton expressed so often in the media (certainly in The Times). Nothing else could explain Cockburn’s 19th century interpretation of both her book and her attitude toward children.

LORRAINE LAHR

Studio City

* Re “Behind the Furor Over First Lady,” Jan. 25: How dare Hillary Clinton distinguish herself as a highly accomplished professional long before she reached the White House! Who does she think she is, advocating universal health care for ordinary Americans against the powerful insurance and health care lobbies? Your front-page editorial, cleverly disguised as news, certainly evokes our nostalgia for a proper first lady, like Nancy Reagan. No uppity speeches from that one. She could “just say no,” except for “loaned” designer gowns.

Of course, if Bill Clinton hadn’t taken the moral high ground in his battle against those who would paralyze our government for political advantage, there would have been no need to savage his wife.

EVERETT GANTZ

LEONORA HOLDER

Long Beach

* Put some of those so-called “arrogant” answers of Hillary Clinton to her critics’ questions in the mouth of a man, and one wonders if there would be the same fuss.

AARON RUBEN

Beverly Hills

* Betsy Weaver (“Read the Book Before Casting Stones,” Commentary, Jan. 24) would be wise to reevaluate her criteria for choosing role models. The debate over Hillary Clinton’s character is traceable to genuine concerns over her past actions and present maneuvering as much as from political hacks positioning themselves in an election year. Those people eager to defend Ms. Clinton (let alone establish her as a role model) could only benefit from embracing reality more closely and recognizing that although she may not be evil incarnate, neither is Hillary an innocent, much-maligned author of children’s books.

JIM GRADY

Anaheim

* Re “The Case of the Reappearing Papers,” editorial, Jan. 24: Your statement that the “inquiry .J.J. can’t be kissed off as mere politics” is naive.

Alfonse d’Amato, that allegedly ethical senator from New York, has held some 25 to 30 Whitewater committee hearings and has come up with some billing records that are 10 to 15 years old. At the same time, the Senate has held one, repeat, one hearing on Medicare. Where in the world are the priorities? Can you really expect anyone to accept the idea that the health program which affects tens of millions is 25 times less important than D’Amato’s circus?

Perhaps another independent counsel should be appointed to examine why the allegedly ethical senator from New York can spend funds to look into a 10-year-old business loss.

ROBERT MARCHAND

Cathedral City

* You fail to mention that the found documents were copies, not originals. You also omit the fact that this “criminal investigation” has uncovered neither evidence or even allegations of wrongdoing by the Clintons. And most important, you fail to tell us how a rehash of ancient Arkansas history will benefit America.

SID SIEGEL

West Covina