By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

September 26, 2006 -- Bill Clinton's rant at Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" has raised a lot of eyebrows, but those who've known the ex-president personally weren't shocked. He's often like that in private: domineering, petulant, uncompromising in defense of his record and (especially) his motives - and equally uncompromising in treating even fair questions as partisan attacks.

But it's rare for the public to glimpse this (ugly) side of Clinton. Was this a lapse or a conscious decision?

The latter seems likelier - if you look at the ex-president's softball interview on the "Today" show last week. There, he sent a warning shot across the bows of the Republican Party and the nation's media. Specifically, he threatened retaliation if any stories about his marriage appear during the 2008 campaign.

His comments came in answer to a question about whether it was "fair game" for the marriage to be under "scrutiny" after The New York Times "ran a front-page article about your marriage."

Read his chilling answer carefully:

"Well, the politicians don't get to decide that. But I think that the thing that I think is gonna be interesting is whether the American people, after all, with all the problems we've got, really want to see the press basically follow the Republican bloodhounds and do all that sort of stuff again and whether or not the people that are doing it can escape the same scrutiny. They have in the past. It's been a free ride, you know? Just pick a Democrat and punch that person. And I don't think that'll happen this time."

Escape scrutiny? Ask Bob Livingston, forced to step aside as House speaker amid a sex scandal. Or Henry Hyde, rewarded for his leadership of the impeachment drive with allegations of an affair. Or Dan Burton, chairman of the Government Reform Committee, accused of fathering an out-of-wedlock child. Or Linda Tripp, details of whose confidential personnel file ended up in The New Yorker, courtesy of the Clinton Pentagon.

In fact, an army of detectives, hired at the behest of Bill and Hillary and their lawyers, defamed and outed "the opposition" (both politicians and witnesses) during the impeachment battle. Earlier, similar energy went into savagely containing "bimbo eruptions" (and not just during the 1992 campaign). The same "secret police" may be on duty again in Hillary's '08 campaign.

But Bill's warning also seems aimed at the media themselves. Noting that "the people that are doing it" [accusing the Clintons of scandal] have escaped "the same scrutiny . . . in the past," he says they won't get a "free ride" this time.

His GOP critics surely did not escape scrutiny - but journalists largely did. Of course, in the interests of the First Amendment, reporters should escape the kind of scrutiny inflicted on politicians. But that's not the Clinton playbook - where item one is "deny the allegation" and item two is "shoot the alligator."

Clinton's warning has a broader meaning, too: He will be unto Hillary as Hillary was unto him - the attack dog. The former president will bare his fangs against any and all who attack his wife.

Even though Hillary's critics may be aiming at her husband's personal life, Bill will jump to Hillary's rescue and defend her against all comers, winning points for chivalry and saving her the need to stoop to answer the charges of their critics.

Eileen McGann co-authored this column.