A few readers complained about an editorial published on Tuesday in the Daily News. The first offense was that the editorial ran on the front page, something rarely (if ever) done in most newspapers. More important there was the content: the suggestion that President Clinton take a leave-of-absence so that he can clear his name.

"You have lowered the newspaper's reputation to tabloid status," faxed John D. Vassar of Lewiston. "Shame on you."

Vassar, and several others who called, said the editorial's author ought to have enough courage to sign his name.

OK. This newspaper -- indeed most newspapers -- does not sign editorials. The stand we took is the position of the paper (and in this case, we went one further and published an unsigned dissent). The reason for this policy is simple: We think ideas are important and deserve examination on their own merits. Unfortunately, these days, there is a tendency to move away from the debate and attack the person, the author, or anyone else who raises an unpopular notion.

There are two other points readers made about the editorial that deserve further exploration: First, the media is making this story bigger than it is; and, second, most of the reporting is more rumor-based than factual.

The Internet, unfortunately, has changed the normal rules of what makes a good source. In general we have not been suspicious enough about the "facts" given to us by a variety of sources.

But our editorial did not imply guilt or innocence. It did not refer to any specific allegation, factual or not. It did not make a moral judgment. It did however conclude -- in purely political terms -- that the president cannot lead a coalition, use the bully pulpit to effect policy, or govern well. Therefore we thought a presidential leave worthy of consideration, a leave to concentrate on the president's legal and political defense.

When the editorial board met to consider this editorial, it was one of our longest, most intense and interesting discussions in many years. "There is no proof," several board members said (and readers have agreed).

Indeed. There often is no proof when allegations are made against police officers or other civil servants. Yet it is routine to place the person on leave while an investigation occurs. In any other profession -- business, civil service or on campus, a leave-of-absence is a good way of sorting out serious allegations. It is neither an indictment nor a conviction, but free time to sort out a response.

"But where will this all end? Can anyone make an allegation against the president, forcing him on leave?" said an editorial board member.

There is a difference here and that is this: Attorney General Janet Reno -- who only a month ago was fighting off calls for her impeachment because she stubbornly clung to her interpretation of the law -- certified that credible evidence exits that a crime may have been committed. No question that is a low standard. But it is a threshold that has been passed in this particular case.

Several readers -- and national polls seem to agree -- are saying "so what." Even if some of these allegations are true -- and most say they are not -- then what's the big deal? One difference is that the president is commander-in-chief. A senator, governor or even a mayor does not fire people (or put them in jail) for adultery; the president by virtue of his office does. Nearly 30 men and women have been discharged from the military when an affair has come to light. But these are ordinary men and women and not top brass.

Many of these cases aren't even limited to allegations about sexual misconduct. Remember Lt. Kelly Flinn? Her case was about lying and sex.

The president may survive this controversy. If history is a guide, he probably will. Who knows what the exact facts are? I don't.

But I think it's worth exploring the idea of opening an institutional process for a president to take leave of absence for this or any other reason. Why does a president always need to serve four years, full-time without ever taking a break? Because we have always done it that way?

An Acting President Gore would not change any of the policies in place. But it would give Clinton time for his family, his lawyers -- and himself.

uHRPo@@K3/40UN%AAIYUouooiicicacYaoa!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A

"piyyNyy

!"3/4AaaiZX1/2

q'4EU"6wa &p&r3)33 cents333338E8u8u99#:0:1:2:3:q:r:s:t:~:HHu@yyiR*(u,,g'd'yAy