Slightly more than 1,000 readers responded to my invitation for comments on the record of President George W. Bush at approximately the mid-point of his second term versus that of former President Bill Clinton at the same juncture.

About 42 percent of them indicated that Clinton had turned in the better performance. Another 37 percent opted for Bush. And the remaining 21 percent were undecided or had negative perceptions of both men.

Robert B. Dodd of Kissimmee was a typical Clinton booster. “Bush’s legacy should go down in history as an intellectual and practical void. Clinton was able to put his superior intellect to work,” he said.

Taking a different tack, Bob Connelly of Granite Bay, Calif., said, “It is too soon to evaluate Bush’s legacy.” On Clinton, though, Connelly indicated he is “sorrowfully disillusioned” by the former president’s actions and inactions.

Moving back to the anti-Bush court, Elizabeth M. Outlaw of Stamford, Conn., said, “Bush’s legacy will be a web of distortion, misdirection, lies, rigidity, misinformation and stupidity.”

Terry O’Donnell of New Smyrna Beach, Fla., expressed similar ire over Clinton: “Did you notice what happened on 9/11? It was all planned while Clinton was appeasing our tormentors.”

Austin, Texas, resident Carolyn Mann reminisced about the Clinton era, noting that she had felt hopeful, the economy was good and we were at peace.

But today’s realities require a different approach, according to Meredith Cuddy of Summerfield, Fla. “Bush is a man of conviction in the fight against terrorism, and I feel that (issue) is the greatest threat to our country,” she said.

Robert J. Herberger of Honolulu rejected any comparison. “It is like night and day. Clinton’s era brought me a sense of safety, wealth and comfort.” Meanwhile, Bush’s has brought him feelings of danger, fear of losing his wealth and general discomfort, he said.

North Carolinian Bob Rowley of Roxboro recalled a key debate of the Clinton period. “It wasn’t about sex; it was about lying to a federal judge under oath.” Besides, he added, many of Clinton’s international efforts, such as his strides to end the Middle East conflict, though noble, never bore any fruit.

William Abrahams of Apopka, Fla., preferred to emphasize Bush’s promise: “I hope Bush is successful in bringing democracy and freedom to the Middle East and that it eventually spreads around the world.”

New Yorker Sandy Miley of Sherrill bluntly declared that Bush will be judged to be one of the worst presidents, below his father.

In contrast, David Parham of St. Cloud, Fla., practically beamed about Bush’s record: “When I consider what our president has done the past six years, it makes me proud to have voted for and stood behind him. I thank God it was not John Kerry.”

Beyond the clear partisans, there were mixed reactions. Roy Wilkens of Kailua, Hawaii, emphasized that after six years of Clinton, he didn’t like the man but was satisfied with his administration. After six years of Bush, Wilkens also said he doesn’t like the man, and labeled the president’s administration the worst in his experience.

Maine resident Michael Simon of Swanville said, “I am aiming for midway between conservative fear and liberal guilt.” He believes Clinton was the best “traditional Republican” president of recent years for balancing the budget, improving the world and encouraging the economy.

Don Peterson of Syracuse, N.Y., simply stated, “It is premature to determine the Bush legacy; in fact, I would argue it is too soon to contemplate the legacy of any of the executives from the last 30 years.”

And Marie Finnell of Orlando turned thumbs down on both: “Clinton was ineffective in international relations, and I am not sure that Bush is any better.”