THE charming swagger of a man who loves the limelight gives way to a very different image tomorrow. As William Jefferson Clinton finally hands over the White House to George W Bush, not only will the complexion of the United States change, but also that of the world.

Clinton and Bush are like chalk and cheese, as people, politically and in the way they operate.

Bill Clinton apologising to the nation, on live television, for his sexual misdemeanours, looks less uncomfortable than George W in front of any camera. A more rabbit-in-the-headlamps look you would struggle to find than 'Dubya' in public. And this loathing of the spotlight cannot fail to have an important bearing on how the Republican administration will operate on the world stage for the next four years.

The presidents as men are at opposite ends of the market, too. Bush may look the Texas hick, with his down-on-the-ranch jeans and silver belt buckle. But he's actually quite the opposite, from a patrician dynasty and very much the boy born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

Clinton's slick public image belies the fact he is actually a country boy, a favourite son of Arkansas, who propelled himself to the fore with a natural gift of energy and style. Despite a presidency which achieved far less than it should have, he remains as popular as ever.

From day one, the presidencies could not be more different either. In 1992, Clinton became the first Democrat president to be elected since 1976. He was carried to office on a wave of euphoria, a back-slapping, hand-clapping, rootin' tootin', whoopin' and hollerin', virtual evangelism which swept over a largely apolitical nation.

By contrast, Bush enters the Oval Office with a whimper, slinking in through the back door with the bitter taste of one of the closets and most controversial polls in history, and into an administration seething with bitterness.

As Clinton smiled and charmed his way through a second term of office, he also presided over "the most bitter period of partisan warfare in 100 years", according to Newcastle University academic Rod Hague.

"The mass electorate are not very ideologically distinct and the policy differences are not huge, but in Congress there is a partisan war. It's tribal, it's like Northern Ireland - two different communities at loggerheads, which is damaging to the government as a whole.

"This is the climate which George Bush is coming into and I think it is going to be very difficult to achieve much at all. It's going to be particularly bitter because a lot of people feel they have been cheated and they are out to get the people who cheated them. Bush talks about reconciliation, but I will stand amazed if it happens."

While Clinton led his administration from the front, a man very much in charge, Bush is likely to rely on the back-room boys.

"The Republicans favour the corporation approach and the president is just the chairman of the board," says Mr Hague, a senior lecturer in politics. "He will delegate and rely on staff to control the flow. It will be a re-run of the Ronald Reagan years.

"He's an affable man who will be in the storefront while his dad's pals get on with running the country.

"He's been hand picked and groomed to prove he can cope and his stint as the Governor of Texas was his proving ground to show he was no longer the hell-raiser of his younger days."

He's a man on the wagon and the eyes of the media will be watching to make sure he doesn't fall off, lacking as he is in the natural charm which saved Clinton when he digressed so badly, with the Monica Lewinsky affair, for example.

Bush also comes to power as the economy teeters on the verge of a downturn. Clinton revelled in 12 years of economic stability, much of which was not down to him, but the skill of the head of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan. With this man in place, Clinton should have achieved much more for his core constituents, the minorities whose life improved little under his rule.

But it will be abroad that the US's omnipresence is set to change the most. Clinton was very much the interventionist, in the mould of American foreign policy since the 1940s.

"Liberal interventionism - America promotes markets and democracy worldwide," says Mr Hague. "Clinton has been prepared to commit US troops and logistical support abroad. Without this, the Bosnia/Kosovo conflict would have been unlikely.

"Bush will be very different. The US will only intervene where vital US interests are at stake. They will be harder to involve in international peacekeeping and humanitarian aid. It will no longer see itself as an International Rescue."

Huge amounts of money are expected to be diverted into the military again, but only to defend US shores. The strategic defence initiative - Star Wars II - will shield the country with batteries of anti-missile missiles. It will need to use Britain (the early warning bases at Menwith Hill, near Harrogate, and Fylingdales, on the North York Moors) to protect America only.

Britain is likely to agree to maintain the "special" relationship it has enjoyed with America compared with the rest of Europe.

In return, it may get cut-price weaponry, shared intelligence, access to nuclear technology and testing facilities.

"But Tony Blair will have to work hard to get on with Bush, harder than with Clinton, who he really hit it off with," says Mr Hague. "The relationship will not be as special or as easy. America will look at it in a business-like way - what is in it for them."

As Bush withdraws from the world, he will be faced with a dilemma. America at home will leave Europe to expand as an economic and military force.

"America will have mixed feelings about this. They get very nervous when Europe pulls together and there will be fresh tremors from across the Atlantic. The US wants to lead and be liked and certainly wants to lead. It doesn't want its leadership challenged."

The current British Government is the most Euro-minded for decades but still distances itself from the community at times.

"Britain seems incapable of being enthusiastic about Europe at the Government and public opinion levels," Mr Hague says.

So with the demise of Clinton the international bridge-builder, and the rise of Bush the homebird, America may not be the only nation to be plunged into isolation, Britain could be too.