The prisoner's dilemma is a pretty classic part of game theory. Two prisoners being questioned by the police about a crime are offered a deal: snitch on the other guy and you go free while he gets three years. If neither of them says anything, each gets one year. If both snitch, each gets two years. I couldn't help but think of the prisoner's dilemma when considering how Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are going to handle the fallout from Benghazi.
It seems to me that Clinton has three options:
- Say nothing, stay out of the spotlight, and hope this all blows over as the Obama administration gets swamped in other scandals (IRS targeting tea party groups, DOJ wiretapping AP, etc.);
- Stand firm with the White House and defend the administration's behavior to anyone who cares to listen;
- Throw the White House under the bus and heap as much blame as possible on Obama so as to keep her presidential aspirations from being tarnished (this can be done anonymously, of course).
Option three is the most interesting. Because you better believe the Obama administration is trying to figure out on whom to stick this mess. And you better believe that Team Clinton knows the Obama administration is trying to figure out on whom to stick this mess. Which means that Team Clinton is weighing its options very carefully right now. And we've all seen how effective they can be at anonymously smearing those who get in their way.
Will Team Clinton go on the attack, defend the presumptive 2016 nominee, and leave Obama holding the bag? Or will they play good soldier until Obama sticks the shiv in? Or will both go nuclear on each other, as participants in the prisoner's dilemma typically end up doing? Hard to say. But it'll be fun to watch.