Introduction
In the world of American politics, appearances can be deceiving. While the public often sees smiling faces and cordial interactions between political figures, behind the scenes, fierce rivalries and deep-seated animosities can simmer. Edward Klein's book "Blood Feud" pulls back the curtain on one of the most contentious relationships in modern American politics: the feud between the Clintons and the Obamas.
This eye-opening account reveals the complex dynamics between two of the most powerful political families in the United States. It explores the origins of their mutual dislike, the ways in which they've been forced to work together despite their animosity, and how their rivalry has shaped recent political events.
The Roots of Resentment
A Bitter Primary Battle
The seeds of the Clinton-Obama feud were sown during the 2008 Democratic primary campaign. As Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama vied for the party's nomination, tensions escalated beyond typical political competition.
The Obama campaign implied that Hillary Clinton couldn't be trusted, suggesting that her motivations were purely political rather than based on genuine conviction. This attack struck at the heart of Hillary's self-image as a principled public servant and left a lasting wound.
For his part, Bill Clinton felt that Obama had unfairly painted him as a racist during the campaign. This perceived slight deeply offended the former president, who prided himself on his positive relationship with the African American community.
Snubs and Insults
The bad blood between the two camps was further exacerbated by a series of perceived snubs and insults. Obama, during his campaign, praised Ronald Reagan's transformative impact on American politics in a way that seemed to diminish Bill Clinton's legacy. For Clinton, who saw himself as one of the great presidents alongside figures like FDR and Reagan, this was a bitter pill to swallow.
Adding insult to injury, Obama never sought Bill Clinton's advice during the campaign, despite reaching out to other former presidents like George W. Bush. This lack of deference to the elder statesman of the Democratic Party rankled Clinton.
Racial Tensions
The feud also had racial undertones that added to its complexity. Michelle Obama harbored resentment towards Hillary Clinton dating back to Clinton's time at Wellesley College. Michelle had learned of an aggressive attack Hillary had made on Edward Brooke, the first African American U.S. Senator, during her college years. This incident colored Michelle's perception of Hillary's racial attitudes.
Bill Clinton, for his part, was reported to have made racially insensitive comments about Obama. According to Senator Ted Kennedy, Clinton once remarked that just a few years earlier, Obama would have been "getting us coffee." Such comments, whether accurately reported or not, contributed to the perception of racial tension between the two families.
Forced Cooperation: The 2012 Election
Obama's Re-election Struggles
As the 2012 presidential election approached, Barack Obama found himself in a precarious position. His approval ratings were low, with only 41% of voting-age Americans believing he was doing a "good job" according to a Gallup poll. Even more concerning, his support among independent voters had significantly eroded since 2008.
To make matters worse, Oprah Winfrey, whose endorsement had been crucial to Obama's 2008 victory, felt slighted by the administration and announced she wouldn't be supporting his re-election bid. Without the "Oprah effect," Obama's team knew they needed to find another way to boost his popularity.
The Clinton Gambit
Despite the bad blood between them, Obama's advisors recognized that Bill Clinton's support could be crucial to securing re-election. Clinton's economic expertise and popularity, especially among white working-class voters, could provide a much-needed boost to Obama's campaign.
However, the decision to reach out to Clinton was not without controversy within Obama's inner circle. Valerie Jarrett, one of Obama's closest advisors, argued strongly against involving Clinton, viewing him as manipulative and difficult to manage. On the other hand, advisor David Plouffe saw Clinton's support as essential to mounting an effective campaign against the Republicans.
In the end, Obama decided to seek Clinton's help, but with a caveat suggested by Jarrett: after the election, any promises made to Clinton could be conveniently forgotten.
Clinton's Double-Edged Support
Bill Clinton agreed to support Obama's re-election campaign, seeing it as an opportunity to secure Obama's backing for Hillary's potential 2016 run. However, true to his reputation for political cunning, Clinton used this platform to advance his own agenda as well.
Clinton's main contribution was to defend Obama's economic record. With his credibility as a former president who had presided over a strong economy, Clinton argued that the slow recovery under Obama was not unusual given the severity of the 2008 financial crisis. This defense was crucial, as a majority of voters viewed Obama's economic policies as a failure.
However, Clinton's support came with strings attached. At the 2012 Democratic National Convention, where he gave the nominating speech for Obama, Clinton subtly reshaped Obama's image. He portrayed the president as a centrist Democrat, more in line with Clinton's own political philosophy, rather than the left-leaning liberal Obama actually was. This framing not only helped Obama's re-election bid but also set the stage for Hillary's future campaign by reinforcing the Clinton brand of Democratic politics.
The Benghazi Incident: A Turning Point
A Crisis Unfolds
On September 11, 2012, a terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. This tragedy became a pivotal moment in the relationship between the Clintons and the Obamas, as well as a significant political issue.
The Cover-Up Controversy
In the aftermath of the attack, the Obama administration, concerned about the potential impact on the upcoming election, pushed for a narrative that portrayed the incident as a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islamic video rather than a premeditated terrorist attack. Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, was pressured to support this version of events, despite her reservations.
This put Clinton in a difficult position. She knew that if the truth came out, it could damage her future political aspirations. However, she also recognized that refusing to go along with the administration's story would create immediate problems for Obama's re-election campaign and strain their already tenuous relationship further.
Shifting Blame
As investigations into the Benghazi attack continued, the Clintons became convinced that the Obama administration was trying to shift blame onto Hillary and the State Department. During a vice presidential debate, Joe Biden suggested that the White House had not been informed about security concerns at the Benghazi compound, effectively placing responsibility on the State Department.
This perceived attempt to scapegoat Hillary infuriated Bill Clinton and deepened the rift between the two families. The Clintons began to doubt whether Obama would honor any implicit agreement to support Hillary's future presidential bid.
The Second Term: Revenge and Positioning
Obama's Struggles
As Obama entered his second term, he faced numerous challenges. His legislative agenda was stalled in Congress, and the implementation of his signature healthcare reform, the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare), was plagued with problems.
The rollout of the healthcare.gov website was a disaster, with technical glitches preventing many people from signing up for insurance. Moreover, Obama's promise that people could keep their existing insurance plans proved to be untrue for millions of Americans.
The Clintons Strike Back
Sensing Obama's vulnerability and feeling that he was unlikely to support Hillary's 2016 campaign, the Clintons began to distance themselves from the administration and subtly criticize its policies.
Bill Clinton seized on the Obamacare debacle, calling it a "fiasco" in an interview and implying that Hillary would have handled the situation more competently. This criticism was particularly stinging coming from a former Democratic president and supposed ally.
Foreign Policy Critiques
The Clintons also used Obama's handling of the Syrian civil war as an opportunity to question his leadership. When Obama failed to follow through on his "red line" threat of military action if the Syrian regime used chemical weapons, Bill Clinton publicly criticized this inaction, suggesting it made the president look weak.
Hillary, meanwhile, let it be known through media channels that she had advocated for a more aggressive approach to Syria during her time as Secretary of State. This positioning allowed her to distance herself from Obama's foreign policy decisions while presenting herself as a more hawkish alternative.
The Art of Political Maneuvering
Clinton's Strategic Support
Throughout Obama's second term, Bill Clinton's support for the administration was carefully calibrated to serve the Clintons' long-term interests. While outwardly supportive, Clinton used his public appearances and interviews to subtly undermine Obama and position Hillary as a more capable leader.
This strategy allowed the Clintons to maintain their standing within the Democratic Party while gradually separating themselves from Obama's policies and legacy. It was a delicate balancing act, designed to set the stage for Hillary's 2016 presidential run without alienating Obama's supporters entirely.
Obama's Dilemma
For his part, Obama found himself in a difficult position. While he had benefited from Clinton's support during the 2012 campaign, he was wary of the former president's influence and ambition. Obama's team was reluctant to give the Clintons too much power within the party, fearing it could overshadow the president's own legacy.
This led to a complex dance of political maneuvering, with both sides trying to use each other for their own ends while minimizing the other's influence. The result was a relationship characterized by mutual distrust and barely concealed animosity, hidden beneath a veneer of party unity.
The Impact on American Politics
A Divided Democratic Party
The feud between the Clintons and the Obamas had significant implications for the Democratic Party. While both families commanded loyal followings within the party, their rivalry created divisions that threatened to undermine party unity.
These tensions became particularly apparent as the 2016 election cycle approached. The party found itself torn between the Clinton legacy and the Obama coalition, with each faction vying for control of the party's direction and resources.
Policy Implications
The animosity between the two camps also had implications for policy-making. As the Clintons distanced themselves from some of Obama's initiatives, it became more difficult for the administration to present a united front on key issues.
This was particularly evident in foreign policy debates, where Hillary Clinton's more hawkish stance often contrasted with Obama's more cautious approach. These differences provided ammunition for Republican critics and complicated the Democrats' efforts to articulate a coherent foreign policy vision.
The Future of the Democratic Party
As the book concludes, it leaves readers to ponder the future of the Democratic Party in the wake of this long-standing feud. Will the party be able to bridge the divide between the Clinton and Obama factions? How will this rivalry shape the party's platform and candidate selection in future elections?
These questions remain relevant even beyond the 2016 election cycle, as the influence of both the Clintons and the Obamas continues to be felt in Democratic politics.
Conclusion: The Nature of Political Power
"Blood Feud" offers a fascinating glimpse into the inner workings of American political power. It reveals how personal animosities, ambitions, and rivalries can shape the course of national politics, often in ways invisible to the general public.
The book serves as a reminder that behind the carefully crafted public images and polished speeches, politics remains a deeply human endeavor, driven by complex relationships and personal dynamics. The feud between the Clintons and the Obamas illustrates how the pursuit of power can create unlikely alliances and bitter enmities, sometimes simultaneously.
Ultimately, "Blood Feud" challenges readers to look beyond the surface of political events and consider the personal motivations and conflicts that drive them. It presents a portrait of American politics that is less idealistic but perhaps more truthful – a world where principles and policies are often secondary to personal ambitions and long-standing grudges.
As American politics continues to evolve, the insights provided by this book remain relevant. They offer a valuable perspective on how personal relationships at the highest levels of government can influence the direction of a nation, for better or worse.