Hillary Clinton's email disaster is being reported by some outlets as a war between the two liberal empires of our generation: the Clintons and the Obamas. At the center of the latest scuffle is non-cabinet cabinet member Valerie Jarrett, who, according to a front-page story (more on its sourcing) in the New York Post is the deep throat behind the Clinton’s latest scandal.

The alleged Val-Jar versus Hillary competition comes just after a warm, fuzzy New York Times interview this weekend, where Jarrett proudly announced that she intended “to stay until the lights go off” at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. In the New York Times valentine, Jarrett opined she is no Democratic Dick Cheney, but she nevertheless was presented as the only person to have the President’s ear and sway his decision-making without getting First Lady Michelle Obama, a Val-Jar fan, nervous. Knocking heads with senior advisors and cabinet members, Jarrett is known to work around their opinions and whisper her thoughts to the President directly – some might say undermining the opinions of those in charge.

The New Republic explained in another dissection of Ms. Jarrett’s power that her role reportedly changed markedly after the first term, and she now occupies a seat at just about every meeting of any importance – leaving even cabinet members on the sideline. Jarrettreportedly  is feared among Administration staff, progressive liberal operatives, and allies as she keeps “not constructive” lists as well as eyes and ears everywhere.

If a New York Post front-page scoop is to be believed, Ms. Jarrett has had her eyes – maybe even target- on the Clintons.

The New York Post broke the story that purports to link Jarret to Hillary's email problems. Jarrett reportedly thought that the Clintons had undermined President Obama last fall and so she reportedly set out to even the score. The “scoop” is by Ed Klein, who has written about the Clintons and the Kennedys. The accuracy of Klein’s reporting, it needs to be said here, has often been challenged.

The New York Post story, it should further be noted, is based on anonymous sources (nothing wrong per se with that), and some of it seems just a bit dubious:

“My contacts and friends in newspapers and TV tell me that they’ve been contacted by the White House and offered all kinds of negative stories about us,” one of Bill’s friends quotes him as saying. “The Obamas are behind the email story, and they’re spreading rumors that I’ve been with women, that Hillary promoted people at the State Department who’d done favors for our foundation, that John Kerry had to clean up  diplomatic messes Hillary left behind.”

Then, according to this source, Bill added: “The Obamas are out to get us any way they can.”

Too ladylike (or smart) to do it herself, according to the Klein’s  anonymous sources, Jarrett had others do her dirty work so that the story couldn’t e traced back to the White House. That we’re reporting on this story suggests she chose the wrong henchmen to get the job done though, if it’s true.

Here’s more:

Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett leaked to the press details of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail address during her time as secretary of state, sources tell me.

But she did so through people outside the ­administration, so the story couldn’t be traced to her or the White House.

In addition, at Jarrett’s behest, the State Department was ordered to launch a series of investigations into Hillary’s conduct at Foggy Bottom, including the use of her expense account, the disbursement of funds, her contact with foreign leaders and her possible collusion with the Clinton Foundation.

Six separate probes into Hillary’s performance have been ­going on at the State Department. I’m told that the e-mail scandal was timed to come out just as Hillary was on the verge of formally announcing that she was running for president — and that there’s more to come.

Members of Bill Clinton’s camp say the former president suspects the White House is the source of the leak and is furious.

Jarrett was said to be livid that most Democrats running for election refused to be seen campaigning with the president. She blamed the Clintons for marginalizing the president and for trying to wrestle control of the Democratic Party away from Obama.

And she vowed payback.

The thing about an Ed Klein story is that it often takes a plausible scenario and reports it as fact with thinly-based sourcing. Caveat: we don’t know if Klein’s story is correct or not. This plausible report has President Obama holding private meetings with Martin O’Malley, the former Democratic governor of Maryland, and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, offering support if they challenge Clinton.

Why is Klein’s story so believable? The dark, backroom politics on display in this story are the same that occurred when, for example, ObamaCare was rammed through Congress, with no time to read or understand the ramifications. Feuds between the powerful are one thing. I don’t quite remember what drove the Montagues and the Capulets to feud so bitterly, but in the end both families lost.  

When our freedoms, our economy, and systems of government are affected by the pettiness of power-hungry people who care more about cementing their dynasties than our future, we are right to be worried.

 Neither the Clintons nor the Obamas offer the solutions that we can and should get behind and even dare to hope that these solutions are truly bipartisan and work to make our lives and economy more free and our nation’s borders more secure.