Blood Feud

Blood Feud Plot Summary

Introduction

Political rivalries shape the destiny of nations, sometimes more profoundly than policy itself. The relationship between the Clintons and the Obamas represents one of the most consequential political feuds in modern American history – a rivalry cloaked in public smiles but seething with private resentment, tactical maneuvering, and raw ambition. What began as competition during the bruising 2008 Democratic primary transformed into a complex power struggle that would ultimately determine the leadership and direction of the Democratic Party. Behind closed doors, the dynamics between these political giants were far more complicated than their carefully choreographed public appearances suggested. The fragile alliance between these two power couples reveals how personal relationships influence major political decisions and how ambition and loyalty constantly clash at the highest levels of power. Through examining this relationship, we gain extraordinary insight into the human element of politics – how deals are made, promises are broken, and how the pursuit of legacy and power drives the actions of even the most disciplined political operators. Anyone interested in understanding modern American politics will find these behind-the-scenes machinations both enlightening and surprisingly relevant to today's political landscape.

Chapter 1: The Genesis of Rivalry: Clinton-Obama Relations Before 2012

The seeds of animosity between the Clinton and Obama camps were planted during the contentious 2008 Democratic primary campaign. What began as political competition quickly devolved into something more personal and bitter. Bill Clinton, accustomed to being the Democratic Party's elder statesman, felt disrespected when Barack Obama, a relatively inexperienced senator, challenged his wife's presumed path to the nomination. The Obama campaign, meanwhile, portrayed the Clintons as representing outdated politics, with Obama famously remarking that Ronald Reagan had "changed America in a way that Bill Clinton did not" – a comment that deeply wounded the former president. Race became an explosive undercurrent in the rivalry. When Bill Clinton compared Obama's South Carolina primary victory to Jesse Jackson's previous wins in the state, the Obama campaign effectively painted Clinton as injecting racial politics into the contest. Clinton was furious, reportedly telling Ted Kennedy, "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee." These tensions were not limited to the candidates themselves. Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett, the president's close adviser, harbored deep suspicions about the Clintons, viewing them as emblematic of establishment politics that had failed to adequately address racial issues. Despite these tensions, political necessity drove Obama to offer Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State position after his victory. This was less about reconciliation and more about strategic containment – keeping a potential rival inside the tent. As Obama reportedly told his advisers, drawing on Mario Puzo's "The Godfather," he wanted to keep his friends close but his enemies closer. The appointment created an uneasy alliance where Hillary was technically subordinate to a man she had recently described as unprepared for the presidency. Throughout Obama's first term, the relationship remained fraught with tension. Hillary chafed under the White House's tight control of foreign policy, with Valerie Jarrett and Obama's inner circle frequently overruling or sidelining her initiatives. Behind the scenes, Bill Clinton continued to nurse grudges about his treatment during the 2008 campaign, while simultaneously rebuilding his political network and positioning for future opportunities. As the 2012 election approached, both sides understood they needed each other, yet remained deeply mistrustful of one another's motives and long-term ambitions.

Chapter 2: A Strategic Alliance: The 2012 Campaign Deal

By the summer of 2011, Barack Obama's reelection prospects looked increasingly uncertain. His approval ratings had dropped to 41%, the economy remained sluggish, and he had taken what he himself called a "shellacking" in the 2010 midterm elections. Against this backdrop, campaign strategist David Plouffe made a controversial proposal during a pivotal White House meeting: enlist Bill Clinton, the most popular Democrat in the country, to help rescue Obama's faltering campaign. The suggestion immediately triggered resistance from Valerie Jarrett, who warned that Clinton was untrustworthy and would attempt to undermine Obama. The internal debate revealed the deep divisions within Obama's team regarding the Clintons. Some advisers believed Clinton's appeal to white working-class voters and his economic credibility made him indispensable. Others, particularly Jarrett, feared that any alliance would eventually be exploited by the Clintons to position Hillary for 2016. Michelle Obama reportedly shared these concerns, telling Jarrett, "Please make sure Bill Clinton doesn't get too close to Barack and let him have too much influence." The discussion represented a fundamental strategic dilemma: risk empowering a rival or potentially lose the White House. Ultimately, political pragmatism prevailed over personal animosity. In September 2011, Obama invited Clinton for a golf game at Andrews Air Force Base, where the framework of their arrangement was tacitly established. No explicit quid pro quo was verbalized, but both men understood the implicit transaction: Clinton would campaign vigorously for Obama in 2012, and in return, Obama would support Hillary's presidential ambitions in 2016. Clinton reportedly told Hillary afterward, "We shook hands, and I told Obama, 'I'll get you reelected.' I'm going to give him what he needs, and he's going to owe us big time." This political bargain, however, was built on sand. Even as the deal was being made, Jarrett was whispering to Obama, "After you're reelected, you don't have to give Clinton anything. The thing to remember is you won't owe him a damn thing." This cynical calculation reflected the realpolitik at the heart of the Clinton-Obama relationship – a marriage of convenience masking deep-seated mistrust and competing ambitions that would eventually explode into open conflict. The stage was set for cooperation in the short term, but with both sides already planning their post-election strategies.

Chapter 3: Delivering the Payoff: Clinton's Convention Support

The 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte became the ultimate test of the fragile Clinton-Obama alliance. With Obama's campaign facing a tight race against Mitt Romney, the decision to give Bill Clinton the prime speaking slot to deliver the presidential nomination speech – a role traditionally reserved for the vice president – underscored how desperately Obama needed Clinton's political star power. This arrangement did not come without significant anxiety among Obama's inner circle. Clinton had repeatedly gone off-message during the campaign, including a controversial CNN interview where he praised Romney's "sterling business career" – directly contradicting Obama's strategy of attacking Romney's corporate background. Clinton approached his convention assignment with characteristic intensity, writing and rewriting multiple drafts. Though he received talking points from Obama's team, he discarded most of them, refusing to show his speech for advance approval. This independence alarmed the White House, with Jarrett reportedly warning Obama, "If I were you, I'd wake up at night in a cold sweat wondering what surprises Clinton is coming up with." Clinton's intentions reflected his complex motivations – he wanted to help defeat Romney, yet simultaneously position himself as the Democratic Party's elder statesman and subtly frame Obama as continuing his centrist legacy rather than forging a distinctly different path. When Clinton finally took the stage on September 5, 2012, he delivered a masterful 48-minute address that far exceeded his allotted time. Ignoring the teleprompter's cues, he added thousands of words to the approved text, turning what was supposed to be a 28-minute speech into nearly an hour of political theater. Clinton's performance was both extraordinary and calculating – he reframed Obama as a centrist Democrat in his own mold rather than the progressive figure Obama had campaigned as in 2008. The speech created the illusion that Obama was Clinton's natural political heir rather than his rival. The speech electrified the convention and gave Obama's campaign the momentum it needed. Polls showed a measurable convention bounce that helped Obama establish a lead he would maintain through Election Day. Yet behind the scenes, tensions remained. Obama's team was visibly irritated by Clinton's scene-stealing performance, with Jarrett muttering, "You can't get him off the stage. Where's the hook to get him off?" The episode perfectly captured the paradox of their relationship – Obama needed Clinton's political gifts but resented being overshadowed by him. Clinton had delivered on his part of the bargain, but the question remained whether Obama would reciprocate when the time came.

Chapter 4: Benghazi Crisis: Fracturing Fragile Bonds

On September 11, 2012, just days after Clinton's triumphant convention speech, terrorists attacked the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. This tragedy became the breaking point in the already strained Clinton-Obama alliance. When Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of State, received initial intelligence indicating that al-Qaeda-linked militants had conducted a planned terrorist attack, she was stunned by President Obama's response. According to sources close to Clinton, Obama insisted that she issue a statement attributing the attack to spontaneous protests over an obscure anti-Islamic video rather than acknowledging it as terrorism. This request placed Hillary in an impossible position. As Secretary of State, she was aware that the evidence contradicted this narrative, yet openly defying the White House could destroy the Democratic Party's unity ahead of the election. When she called Bill to discuss the dilemma, he reportedly erupted, "It's a fucking trap. Those bullshit talking points manufactured in the White House sausage factory aren't going to hold up. Axe and the rest of them are trying to hang the whole mess on you." Bill understood immediately that the administration was creating a narrative that could eventually be used to shield Obama from criticism by shifting blame to the State Department. Hillary ultimately complied with the White House's narrative, releasing a carefully worded statement that mentioned the inflammatory video. However, she refused Obama's subsequent request to appear on Sunday morning talk shows to defend this position – a task that ultimately fell to UN Ambassador Susan Rice. This strategic decision saved Hillary from becoming the face of what critics would later call "the Benghazi Deception," but created lasting animosity between the Clinton and Obama camps. The White House viewed her refusal as disloyal, while the Clintons saw it as justified self-preservation. By January 2013, when Hillary testified before Congress about Benghazi, the damage was irreparable. Her emotional outburst – "What difference, at this point, does it make?" – provided fodder for critics and revealed the enormous strain she had been under. Bill Clinton reportedly viewed the entire episode as evidence that Obama had deliberately set Hillary up to take the fall for a foreign policy failure. What had begun as a pragmatic alliance was now deteriorating into mutual suspicion and resentment, with both sides increasingly focused on positioning for the 2016 presidential race rather than maintaining even a pretense of unity.

Chapter 5: Post-Presidency Strategies: Obama's Retreat and Clinton's Advance

By early 2013, with Obama safely reelected and Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State concluded, the façade of cooperation between the two political powerhouses began to crumble entirely. The Clintons had expected Obama to fulfill his part of their implied bargain by endorsing Hillary for 2016 and giving the Clintons access to Obama's formidable campaign apparatus. Instead, Obama began systematically retreating from any commitment to Hillary's future aspirations. During a joint 60 Minutes interview that was orchestrated to smooth over tensions, Obama pointedly avoided endorsing Hillary when directly asked about 2016, dismissing the question with, "You guys in the press are incorrigible. I was literally inaugurated four days ago." This public snub was followed by more substantial actions that revealed Obama's true intentions. He announced that his campaign's digital operation, data mining capabilities, and social media networks – the most sophisticated political machine ever built – would be folded into "Organizing for Action," his personal advocacy group, rather than transferred to the Democratic National Committee where the Clintons could access it. When Bill Clinton proposed names for the DNC chairmanship, Obama ignored them entirely and reappointed Debbie Wasserman Schultz without consultation. These moves signaled that Obama had no intention of ceding control of the party apparatus to the Clintons. Bill Clinton responded by methodically building a parallel political infrastructure. He expanded the Clinton Foundation, rebranding it as the "Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation" to emphasize its role as the family's political vehicle. He established a network of loyal operatives, reaching out to Democratic power brokers in key states and cultivating relationships with union leaders. Most significantly, he began systematically recruiting Obama's top campaign talent, including Jim Messina, Obama's 2012 campaign manager, and other key strategists who had engineered Obama's victories. This talent raid infuriated the White House. Obama personally called Hillary to complain, asking her to rein in Bill's poaching of his staff. Her response was telling: "Are you serious? I can't rein Bill in. Never have, never will." Valerie Jarrett convened an emergency meeting where she lectured staffers about loyalty to the president, warning them against defecting to the Clinton camp. But the exodus continued, as political professionals recognized that Hillary represented the future of the party while Obama was increasingly viewed as a lame duck. By 2014, the outlines of a full-scale power struggle for control of the Democratic Party were clearly visible.

Chapter 6: Blood Feud: The Battle for Democratic Party Control

The struggle between the Clinton and Obama camps escalated into what insiders described as a true "blood feud" – a term that captured the visceral, personal nature of the conflict. Far beyond normal political competition, this rivalry was driven by deep-seated personal antipathy. Bill Clinton reportedly told associates, "I hate that man Obama more than any man I've ever met, more than any man who ever lived." Similarly, the Obamas viewed the Clintons with contempt, with Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett nicknaming Hillary "Hildebeest" during their private conversations. The battleground for this feud extended across multiple fronts. The Clinton team systematically worked to distance Hillary from Obama's increasingly unpopular policies, particularly in foreign affairs. Bill publicly criticized Obama's handling of Syria, suggesting the president risked looking like a "wuss" by failing to intervene more decisively. He also attacked the implementation of Obamacare, calling it a "disaster" and implying that Hillary would have executed it more competently. These critiques were carefully calibrated to position Hillary as both experienced and distinct from Obama without alienating the Democratic base. Obama responded by deliberately keeping his options open regarding 2016, floating the possibility of supporting Vice President Biden or other candidates. According to Clinton associates, Obama was actively searching for "his Mini-Me" – someone relatively unknown with a fresh face who could continue his legacy rather than restore the Clinton dynasty. His team also worked to limit the Clintons' influence within the Democratic Party apparatus, controlling access to donor lists and maintaining tight control over the DNC. By 2014, the outcome of this power struggle was becoming clear. The Clintons' methodical approach was prevailing over Obama's increasingly detached leadership. Democratic donors, elected officials, and political operatives were gravitating toward Hillary's inevitable candidacy, recognizing that Obama's star was fading. Political analyst Henry Sheinkopf observed, "The Clintons have made Obama irrelevant in the party. Obama isn't going to have a say about the next nominee. In fact, the Clintons are making sure he has very little say about anything." What had begun as a temporary alliance of necessity had evolved into the most consequential intra-party conflict since the Kennedy-Carter feud, with enormous implications for the future direction of American politics.

Summary

The Clinton-Obama rivalry reveals a fundamental truth about political power: it operates through personal relationships as much as through formal institutions. Throughout this complex saga, we witness how ambition, loyalty, betrayal, and revenge shaped crucial decisions affecting millions of Americans. The central tension – between Obama's desire to transform American politics versus the Clintons' determination to restore their dynasty – represents competing visions not just for the Democratic Party but for American governance itself. This clash of outsized personalities and their competing visions ultimately determined whose political legacy would endure. The lessons from this political blood feud remain profoundly relevant today. First, we see how political alliances are inherently transactional – the appearance of unity often masks deep-seated conflicts and calculations. Second, the battle demonstrates how modern political parties are less ideological entities than vehicles for powerful personalities and their networks. Finally, the Clinton-Obama rivalry teaches us that in politics, the long game often prevails over short-term advantages – Bill Clinton's methodical rebuilding of his influence after 2008 ultimately outmaneuvered Obama's attempt to control the party's future from the White House. As new political rivalries emerge in our contemporary landscape, understanding these dynamics provides essential context for interpreting the hidden currents that continue to shape American democracy.

About Author

Loading...

Edward Klein

Edward J. Klein (born 1937) is an American author, tabloid writer and gossip columnist who is a former foreign editor of Newsweek, and former editor-in-chief of The New York Times Magazine (1977-1987). He has written about the Kennedys, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, and Donald Trump.Klein is the former foreign editor of Newsweek and served as the editor-in-chief of The New York Times Magazine from 1977 to 1987. He frequently contributes to Vanity Fair and Parade and writes a weekly celebrity gossip column in Parade called "Personality Parade" under the pseudonym "Walter Scott." (The Walter Scott pseudonym had originally been used by Lloyd Shearer, who wrote the column from 1958 to 1991.[3]) He also writes books, many of which have been on the New York Times Bestseller list.Edward Klein

Read more