BIPARTISANSHIP HOT IN SACTO, COLD IN D.C.

Byline: BRIDGET JOHNSON

As gavel-wielding Nancy Pelosi leads the D.C. charge against anything and everything Republican or anything that may have at one point touched a Republican, President Bush should be testing the ink in his long-dormant veto pen for the crucial issues in which compromise will be elusive -- or even dangerous.

And while Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was sworn in for four more years declaring a new ``post-partisan'' era in California politics, the Capitol Hill crystal ball is markedly different: ``This is our turf now.'' Revving up for their ``100 hours'' of legislative drive-bys, the last thing on Democrats' minds was bipartisanship.

The first thing on their minds? 2008. Hillary. Barack. Big, pretty, gleaming White House.

Rather than storming the Capitol as an attack pack out for GOP blood, though, the House majority should remember something: Taking action just because it's the opposite of what Bush wants isn't necessarily what's best for the nation.

Really.

Neither is window-dressing to try to convince Americans -- as candidates dive into their '08 exploratory committees -- that their midterm picks heralded the advent of some great, glorious dawn for the nation. Pelosi may have busted the ``marble ceiling,'' but that should quickly be soured by Dems picking up chunks of that figurative marble and chucking it at Republicans.

Here's the reality: Democratic Congress plus Republican president equals stonewalling. Power plays. Mudslinging. Knee-deep rhetoric. Add that to pre-campaign jockeying, and D.C. should be awash in so much mud it will look like a West Coast El NiIllegal 'X-value' for character STYLs voided here o gone wild.

There are reasons why the Dems are now in control: Scandal. Sex scandal. Republican inaction on things like immigration. Republican overaction on things like spending. The Iraq war has suffered some tactical errors, like not enough troops in the initial 2003 invasion, and the left ably capitalized upon the fears of a war-wimpy America.

And that, folks, is the main issue now. War. Not the ``100 hours'' issues of minimum wage, stem cells, Medicare drug prices, drilling leases (don't get me started on the need to support domestic oil exploration instead of stunting it at every turn), student-loan interest rates and lobbyist hand-slaps.

Lucky for the Democrats, their panel of grass-roots war advisers was in town for the first 100 hours, too.

In ``Ms. Sheehan Goes to Washington,'' the press-coined ``peace mom'' and her followers interrupted the Dems' agenda-setting press conference, shouting something like ``Discombobulate, triangulate, troops home now!'' Or it might have been ``Absquatulate, strangulate, troops home now!'' (Oh, ``de-escalate'' and ``investigate''? Sorry. Everything Cindy Sheehan utters turned into a lefty-speak blur a long time ago.)

Even more amusing was how, after Democrats unable to be heard retreated into caucus, Sheehan commandeered the microphones and angled for another 15 minutes of fame. She presented an arrogant list of ``demands'' -- not requests, mind you, but a non-negotiable to-do list.

``We didn't put you in power to work with the people that have been murdering hundreds of thousands of people since they have been in power,'' Sheehan said. ``We put you in power to be opposition to them finally and we're the ones who put them in power.''

That, of course, gives her moral authority to chase with torches the Dems who do not bow to her bidding -- troop pullout, impeachment, general full-scale Bush-bashing.

Never mind the dangerous fallout of such a ``strategy.''

Nowadays, two voices are ringing out above the Iraq war din -- that of John McCain, R-Ariz., the Vietnam veteran who is a proponent of a troop surge to clean the decks in Iraq, and ally Joe Lieberman, I-Conn. ``I have presidential ambitions, but they pale in comparison to what I think is most important to our nation's security,'' the Arizona senator said after the holiday break. ``If it destroys any ambitions I may have, I'm willing to pay that price gladly.''

And that's the deal: Right now, there are things more important than impressing voters in advance of the 2008 polls. It's clear that voters being polled about war sentiment aren't comprehending the gravity of near- nuclear Iran's involvement and nefarious aims in Iraq.

There are far more important things than taking symbolic stands against Bush just because he's Bush.