TINGE OF REVENGE?

Democrats tell us that President Bush should foster an atmosphere of bipartisanship in Washington.

But what is the Democratic leadership offering? Not a solitary thing, because to them the requirement of bipartisanship applies only to Republicans.

It is troublesome that Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle has telegraphed his obstructionist intentions, but there is an even more ominous harbinger for the next four years: Bill Clinton's coronation of his confidante and fund raiser Terry McAuliffe as head of the Democratic National Committee.

Consider McAuliffe's own words as a reflection of his attitude toward this exalted bipartisanship: "Let George W. Bush have a good week. Let him have a good inauguration. But we need to give these Republicans the same honeymoon they gave us: none."

I don't know about you, but I don't recall hearing one word of condemnation of these pugnacious words from anyone.

But there are further disturbing aspects to McAuliffe's ascension to leadership. It shows that Clinton, if not directly calling the shots for the party after the expiration of his term, will at least be playing a major role in its decisions.

As Clinton's alter ego, McAuliffe will ensure partisan warfare for the unforeseeable future. I'm not talking here about healthy partisan battles on substantive policy disagreements. I'm talking the same old dirty politics that have dominated the past eight years.

Remember that McAuliffe is the guru who presided over Clinton's 1996 re-election effort, which The Washington Post described as "the most scandal-plagued harvest season in recent politics." Clinton and McAuliffe would doubtless have us believe that the campaign-finance scandal involved not the Clinton campaign itself, but the Democratic National Committee.

But the truth is that Clinton was intermingling the funds and activities of the two entities and micromanaging each in flagrant violation of the campaign finance laws. Clinton purposely blurred the distinction between soft money and hard money so he could get around the legal limitations applicable to hard money contributions. McAuliffe, unwittingly or otherwise, had to have been complicit in this arrangement.

In fact, that's one of the things that so troubled both FBI director Louis Freeh and Charles La Bella, the head of the Justice Department's special task force investigating the campaign finance scandal. They both noted that there was strong evidence that Clinton had personally controlled the Democratic Party's advertising campaign and used its funds in support of his re-election effort.

Don't you think it's reasonable for Republicans to be concerned over Clinton's continued involvement and the Democrats' apparent willingness to let that happen?

So let me get this straight: Clinton's not sorry for the Lewinsky scandal. He's not sorry for the campaign finance scandal. His wife's a new senator. And he's got his finger on the hot button of the Democratic Party apparatus. Does anyone smell revenge?

~David Limbaugh is nationally syndicated columnist.