Noam, I guess I'm still not convinced by the notion that, as a former POTUS, Bill has an overaching obligation to referee intra-party fights in some netural way. As to the idea that Bill is more like a plaintiff's husband serving as judge, well, aren't the voters the judge? And in a way, Bill himself has been on trial here. Obama frequently complains about problems that didn't get fixed in the 90s and implies that the Clinton political machine is hopelessly corrupted by special interests. Doesn't Bill get to defend himself?

Or maybe the idea is that Hillary can do all the defending. But again, why? It's clear that to some degree this campaign was about a restoration. If one is opposed to dynasties and restorations per se, fine. But if we're going to allow this sort of thing, then why not let everyone have at it? I certainly don't think Bill has enhanced his once-enviable reputation in this campaign. I'm just not sure that he violated some high principle by getting so involved.  

--Michael Crowley