Much has been made in recent days about Former President Bill Clinton's attacks on Senator Barack Obama. Essentially, an image as emerged from the Clinton campaign that shows the Senator as positive and conciliatory toward Obama while the her husband plays the role of attack dog. This is interesting in and of itself because it is not a typical role for a candidate's spouse. Typically, the spouse will appear on the campaign trail as a warm, and I do stress warm, up act for the candidate. They sing the candidate's praises, and show that the candidate is a real person, not just a politician. They do not typically enter the fray, and when they do, it makes headlines. Think about Hillary Clinton's comments about not staying home and baking cookies, or Elizabeth Edwards engaging Ann Coulter, or Michelle Obama's comments about keeping her own house in order (which I'm sure has all sorts of levels of meaning that I as a mere male will never grasp).

Interestingly, as I think about it, we rarely hear about the husbands of female candidates. Growing up in California, I heard plenty about Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, but really nothing about their husbands. Likewise with Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell here in Washington. I vaguely recall something about Christine Gregoire's husband in some kind of fun ceremonial role around Haloween, but I can't remember his name. I don't know why that is.

Then there's Bill Clinton. Of course Bill Clinton is not just any husband. He's the former President, the last Democratic President and therefore the "head" of the Democratic Party. The Clinton's are also a couple that presents themselves as partners in their public service. Just as in 1992, everyone knew that Hillary would be one of Bill's closest confidantes and advisors, the reverse is true in 2008 and it creates a unique set of dynamics that interact in ways that may not be entirely predictable.

First, you have the potential to have the first female President and the first first gentleman in U.S. (but not world) history. In fact, in recent history, we have seen a female Prime Minister in the UK, namely Margaret Thatcher. Her husband Denis stood back and let her do her job. Of course, he was a businessman and she was a barrister and later a politician. He had his world and she had hers and he was apparently content with his ceremonial role in hers.

That's not the case with the Clintons. Bill, at his peak, was the undisputed master of American politics, expertly skilled in both the art of politics and the science of policy. Hillary, while certainly an accomplished attorney and politician in her own right, is clearly following the path of her husband.

That brings us to the second dynamic. The potential first gentleman is the former President with everything that goes with that reality. This is not the same as, say Governor Gregoire, or Nancy (two heartbeats or impeachments from the presidency) Pelosi assuming the office. This is a case of "The Clintons" returning to the White House. I don't mean that to in any way disrespect Senator Clinton, but it is an undeniable fact. The Clinton's have always had a partnership in their political life, and there's no reason that can or should be expected to change.

This third dynamic really shakes things up a bit. Hillary Clinton has long been the heir apparent to the Democratic nomination and the legacy of her husband. Essentially, no matter how you spin it, a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for Bill Clinton's legacy. The opposite is also true. To run against Hillary is to run against Bill's legacy. This puts Senators Obama and Edwards in an awkward position. After all, if Clinton were not in the race, the Democratic candidates would be tripping over each other trying to contrast how each is the best candidate to return America to the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years. But to run against Hillary, Edwards and Obama have to run against Bill, and they have to do it in a nuanced way.

This actually gives Democrats an opportunity to reexamine the Clinton years and revisit things that may have seemed like a good idea at the time but have turned out to be not so good. (NAFTA comes to mind.)They have to make the case that change from the Bush and Clinton years is needed without completely dismissing the Clinton years as bad times.

Of course, this puts Bill Clinton in an unenviable position. He feels a need to defend both his wife, and his own legacy when not long ago, his wife was the heir apparent and his legacy was secure. Unfortunately, he has been making that defense in a way that make it look like he's actually angry that his wife has to fight for this nomination and that his party is not embracing his legacy wholesale. Sadly, the anger with which he seems to be attacking Obama, makes it seem like he resents these facts. His behavior reminds me of Joe Lieberman in the 2006 election when he was so convinced that he deserved his party's nomination that he rejected his primary loss and ran as an independent. There's no reason to believe that such thinking is going on in the Clinton camp, but politicians who think they are entitled to be elected or re-elected, or that it's "their turn" are dangerously out of touch with the realities of representative democracy.