In the spectacle that was the South Carolinian Democratic primary last Saturday, Hillary Clinton suffered a particularly humbling defeat by her chief rival Barack Obama, even after vigorous campaigning by the New York senator.

Along with some unexpected results — 53 percent of women voted for Obama as compared to 30 percent for Clinton — the state primary provided a revealing preview of what it would be like having former President Bill Clinton back in the White House, only this time with his wife as commander in –chief.

Bill Clinton’s newly increased involvement in his wife’s campaign was hallmarked by a flurry of media attention directed at the past president’s questionable remarks regarding race and Barack Obama.

His comments did more than raise a few eyebrows — a number of leaders publicly criticized his comments as being divisive and inappropriate, with former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle asking for a stop to the “backbiting,” and House majority whip Rep. James Clyburn saying he “recoiled” after Bill’s association of Obama with Jesse Jackson. As a past president who is expected to carry a “statesmanlike aura,” his actions were especially disappointing.

More significantly, the performance revealed exactly what is problematic about the political leviathan that is “Billary.” Not only does Bill’s increased presence shadow the performance of Hillary, it weakens her ability to appear as an independent, strong candidate. It threatens to make her, once again, just Bill’s wife, and not her own autonomous and experienced politician.

The associational support garnered by Bill Clinton is substantial. A New York Times poll released in December showed that 44 percent of Democratic voters were more inclined to support Hillary’s candidacy because of her husband. Indeed, her campaign has been using him as a kind of electoral trump card.

Coming off her victory in New Hampshire, the campaign removed Bill from the sidelines and placed him in the heat of political battle, understanding the importance of a win in South Carolina. Yet the results of the primary show the grave consequences of misusing Bill — Obama not only won in a landslide, but Clinton is left with the political stain of overtly racializing the contest.

While this would otherwise be a strategic blunder for Hillary — playing the proverbial race card at the wrong time and place —the involvement of her husband has also brought up the “Bill question.” It’s an important issue, especially for a candidate who has received considerable support because of her spouse but has neglected to define what role he would play were she to take office. Within the span of the race, Bill’s function has varied, be it from a smiling fan to an aggressive defender, a gracious ex-president to a campaign attack dog.

This fluctuation demonstrates less the versatility of Bill Clinton and more the predicament his celebrity would pose to his wife’s presidency. If she has to be so supported by her spouse, Hillary can certainly be undermined by him, and his recent displays suggest he is not conveniently manageable. With Bill’s bold, new role in Hillary’s campaign, the perception of her strength is already dimming.

Even if the recent Hillary campaign hubbub has been generated by an imprudent decision to go negative — with voters reacting to media coverage of Bill Clinton’s faux pas, the Bill question remains. Be it now or sometime in the near future, Hillary will have to create distance between herself and her spouse. Admittedly, it is an inequitable gendered aberration — the male candidates in the race face no such task.

Still, neither have gained from their spouses the obvious political advancement offered by the Clinton partnership. Yet therein lies the challenge — Hillary must delineate herself from the affiliation that has otherwise defined and propelled her political career.

[Reach columnist Sarah Gaither at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.]