Bill Clinton will continue to serve as Hillary's hit man. But Obama should no longer join the squabble. He should rely on the Ted Kennedy's to take on the former President, and keep above the fray.
There are a number reasons why these surrogates can be much more effective than Obama. First, they have more credibility because they are not, themselves, candidates. Second, Obama avoids the label of being an angry man. Third, the endorsers can lecture the former President much more effectively than the younger Obama.
Bill Clinton will continue to present a formidable Obama with a formidable challenge. The use of surrogates, especially older senators and governors, to parry the Bill Clinton attacks can be an effective counter.
Bill Clinton's attacks are needlessly polarizing the party and damaging the memory people have of his presidency.
Those of us who supported him during those years have remembered the good things he did and tried to lock away his failures. As long as he stayed in the background, as a reassuring presence, he provided help and credibility to Hillary.
But as he reveals himself as an attack dog, he reminds us of his problem with veracity, his past moral and political failures, and damages Hillary's chances.
The Greeks used to say that there were three things it takes to win an argument: ethos, pathos and logos. [credibility, passion and logic].
I believe Obama has all three. Hillary lacks the pathos, and now is losing the ethos, thanks to Bill. If Hillary is to win she should jettison Bill as a surrogate attack dog and work on her pathos. (she had this for a moment in NH.)
Obama can avoid losing ethos by letting the surrogates point out the lack of ethos in the Clinton campaign without sullying himself in the process.
Update: link to discussion on Aristotle's ethos, pathos logos A General Summary of Aristotle's Appeals