It should be noted that since abdicating the position of Secretary of State, and the introduction of Clinton’s ‘fixer’, John “Skippy” Podesta, the White House -and more specifically the activity that flows from within it- is now a synergy of both President Obama and Hillary Clinton’s goals.
Yesterday some pundits and media looked strangely at the non-scheduled meeting between Obama and Clinton as if fodder for grand conspiratorial questioning.
As with most issues the answers are not as complex as they seem.
PEOPLE's @sswestfall chats w/@HillaryClinton before her @WhiteHouse lunch. Hope she wasn't late for @barackobama! pic.twitter.com/6MAVgsXXzO
— People (@people) May 29, 2014
Despite their differences Team Obama owes Team Clinton politically; almost everyone would agree with this. On some issues they both have the same vested interest; on other issues the individual teams have individual goals and/or interests to protect.
Advancing progressive liberalism is the commonality. How the progressive ball advances is subject to the different perspectives inherent between Team Clinton and Team Obama; but advancing the collective ball is the common goal.
The Clintons are notoriously suspicious, and with Team Obama they should be.
Liberalism in a general sense is about feelings, which as we all know are subject to changes based on momentary situations and circumstances. As a direct consequence, those engaged in the advancement of liberal ideology are not prone to loyalty.
Conservatism is more conducive to loyalty because the commonality within freedom is inherently based on ‘principles’. Accordingly liberals do not ever tune the trait of trust, they can’t. Suspicion rules the day as the pie must be watched closely to determine equality in slicing.
The same general disposition of pie-watching unease also flows through personal interactions and personnel decisions. Hence, John “Damn Skippy” Podesta placed inside the Obama circle to keep an eye on Clinton interests.
Bill and Hillary trust Podesta, Billary does not trust Obama / Jarrett / McDonough.
Did the Benghazi narrative come up in the luncheon yesterday between Obama and Clinton? Probably, but not to the extent most would think.
In this “scandal” they both have risk; they both have something to lose. Obviously for Hillary her shot at the Iron Throne; for Obama it’s exposure to sunlight and an exposed legacy of lies. So they generally just need to coordinate talking points and make a united front – no biggie.
But that’s not the general reason for frequently coordinated updates.
President Obama is about to lose control of the Senate. The House of Reps is already gone, and most pundits agree it may even slip further beyond the horizon of hope for many more elections cycles.
Hillary, or more accurately “the Clintons” would be inheriting an adverse House and Senate so she they view themselves as having a vested interest into what Stompy Feet is doing to try and offset the losses.
At the very least Billary want some kind of positioning where the legislative umpires might be swayed or maneuvered away from direct antagonism of their team.
Everyone, myself included, need to remove those old paradigm hats of political science, pull down all historical references, and get out a blank ledger. Things will not appear to make sense if you keep in mind the old familiar constructs of what traditional DC politics mean.
This is 2014 now. Look around.
After a hurricane moves over your town, you’ll drive around missing all the turns because the subconscious road markers have been removed. The brown shed at the corner of the street you turn to work every day is gone. You drive right past.
If you keep searching for the familiar to navigate your way you’ll remain lost.
To navigate now you have to reset your frames of reference.