THE SUBSTANCE OF IRE

David Lauter believes, as opposed to the campaign shown in “Primary Colors,” that “in the throes of a sharp economic recession, voters insisted upon a discussion of substance” during the Clinton-Bush election (“What the Movie Gets--and What It Doesn’t,” March 15).

I haven’t seen the movie, but Lauter’s views of 1992 must be primarily colored by some weird bias, since that election was as vacuous as those in 1988 and 1996. Far from caring about substance, or the intricacies of economic plans, the voters were simply very unhappy with the recession and in the mood to fire its symbol, George Bush. They weren’t thrilled someone like Clinton was the only choice, but they held their noses and voted. Even then, almost one in five chose Perot. Clinton had already lucked out in that only second-tier Democrats were running (and even then Elmer Fuddish Paul Tsongas and flaky Jerry Brown gave him a run for his money) since, with Bush riding high after Desert Storm, all major Democrats (including our now-vice president) had shamefully opted out.

The public’s distrust of Clinton the man continued when, with a solid economy to run on, he couldn’t even manage to get half the vote in a low-turnout reelection. (Compare Reagan or Nixon.)

Please don’t think this is a partisan view. It’s still about the economy, stupid, and the voters often judge the economy for stupid reasons. For instance, Reagan swept to reelection in 1984, but if he’d run during the deep recession in 1982, he likely would have lost.

EDWARD CILENTO

Los Angeles

Saying who is electable doesn’t account for the 1996 race that, because of low turnout, put Bill Clinton back in office with only 25% of registered voters. Given the overly favorable media attention Clinton got in 1992, I bet even John Travolta could match his percentages.

JANET RICHARDSON

Newport Beach

The American public, in contrast to the way “Primary Colors” author Joe Klein sees us, knows the president for what he has done for the country and gives him high approval ratings. The buffoons we see are the ones responsible for this sorry excuse of a movie.

David Lauter is absolutely right when he says that John Travolta is no Bill Clinton. For us, he is just the guy from “Grease.”

BATYA DAGAN

Los Angeles