Michael: You know the old saying, 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend'? In Washington, it’s more like, 'The ally standing next to you is just waiting for the right moment to push you off the cliff.' And no one, apparently, builds a higher cliff than the Clintons and the Obamas. Kevin: That's a dark way to start, but I'm listening. It sounds less like a political party and more like an episode of Succession, but with national security clearances. Are we talking about friendly competition or something more… Shakespearean? Michael: Oh, definitely Shakespearean. We're talking about a level of rivalry that makes you rethink everything you see on the public stage. This all comes from a book that absolutely lit up the bestseller lists, precisely because it pulled back the curtain on this dynamic. Today, we're diving into Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. The Obamas by Edward Klein. Kevin: Ah, Edward Klein. I know that name. He’s a serious journalist, right? Former editor at The New York Times Magazine and Newsweek. But his books… they tend to cause a stir. They’re known for being explosive, often relying on anonymous insider sources. Michael: Exactly. He has the credentials to get access, but his work is definitely polarizing. Readers either see it as a courageous exposé or a collection of high-level gossip. And this book is the perfect example. It argues that the polite smiles and handshakes between these two political dynasties were masking a deep, bitter, and personal feud. Kevin: A blood feud. The title doesn't exactly whisper, it screams. So where does a story like this even begin? I assume it’s not with a public argument on CNN. Michael: Not at all. According to Klein, the modern chapter of this feud begins not in a war room, but on a golf course. A seemingly friendly game that was actually a high-stakes negotiation for the future of the presidency.

Kevin: A golf game? You’re telling me a political succession plan was hammered out between the sand traps and the water hazards? That sounds a little too cinematic to be true. Michael: It does, but the context is what makes it so compelling. It’s 2011. President Obama is gearing up for his 2012 reelection campaign, and his numbers are tanking. The economy is sluggish, his signature healthcare law is unpopular, and his team is genuinely worried he could be a one-term president. Kevin: Right, I remember that period. The enthusiasm from 2008 had definitely faded. The campaign needed a jolt of energy, something to win back those working-class voters who were skeptical of him. Michael: Precisely. And his campaign manager, David Plouffe, a hardcore pragmatist, identifies the one person who can connect with that exact demographic: Bill Clinton. The problem is, Obama and Clinton can barely stand to be in the same room. The 2008 primary battle between Obama and Hillary was brutal and left deep scars. Kevin: Hold on. So the idea was to bring in your former rival's husband, a man you personally dislike, to save your own presidency? That’s a desperate move. I can’t imagine that went over well with Obama’s inner circle. Michael: It was political dynamite. Especially with one person: Valerie Jarrett. The book paints her as the ultimate Obama loyalist, his closest advisor, and a fierce protector of the Obama brand. She saw the Clintons as opportunistic and untrustworthy. Klein describes her as a virtual co-president, the "third member in the marriage," who had immense influence over both Barack and Michelle. Kevin: So she's the gatekeeper. The one who decides who gets in and who stays out. And she wanted the Clintons as far away as possible. Michael: She was dead set against it. She even suggested they try to get Oprah Winfrey on board instead. But Plouffe was relentless. He argued that Bill Clinton was a political weapon they couldn't afford to leave on the sidelines. He even floated a rumor that Bill was secretly encouraging Hillary to challenge Obama for the 2012 nomination, which was the ultimate threat. Kevin: Wow. So it was basically political blackmail. Either you bring Bill into the tent, or he might just burn the whole thing down from the outside. Michael: That was the fear. So, reluctantly, Obama agrees to a meeting. And to make it look casual, they stage it as a round of golf. But Klein describes it as a logistical and emotional nightmare. Both men apparently went into it with a deep sense of distaste and a premonition of betrayal. Kevin: I’m just picturing this. The awkward small talk, the forced smiles for the cameras, all while they’re negotiating the fate of the Democratic party. What was the actual deal they struck on the green? Michael: It was an unspoken understanding, a classic political quid pro quo. Bill Clinton would commit himself fully to getting Obama reelected. He would campaign, fundraise, and, most importantly, give a primetime speech at the Democratic National Convention to vouch for Obama's presidency. Kevin: And in return? What did the Clintons get out of it? Michael: The White House in 2016. The deal, as the Clintons understood it, was that Obama would clear the path for Hillary. He would not only endorse her but use his political machine to ensure she became the next nominee. Bill reportedly went home that day beaming, telling Hillary, "I’m going to get him reelected, and he is going to owe us big time." Kevin: That is an incredible gamble. They're betting that a man they fundamentally distrust will honor a handshake deal made under duress. It feels so fragile. Especially when you have figures like Valerie Jarrett in the background, who probably started planning how to undermine the deal the second it was made. Michael: According to the book, that's exactly what happened. Jarrett was determined to make sure that once the election was over, Obama wouldn't owe the Clintons anything. This wasn't a truce; it was a temporary ceasefire in a long, ongoing war for control.

Kevin: Okay, so they strike this fragile deal. Bill has to hold up his end of the bargain first. And he does, right? He gives that legendary convention speech in 2012. Michael: He gives the speech of a lifetime. Klein dedicates a whole section to this, and it’s fascinating. The Obama campaign sent Bill a script with their talking points. Bill, in his classic style, apparently took one look at it and threw it in the trash. He decided to write his own speech from scratch. Kevin: Of course he did. You don't hand a script to a political artist like Bill Clinton. He’s a performer. Michael: A performer and an illusionist. The Obama campaign was terrified. They had no idea what he was going to say. But on the night, he delivered a 48-minute masterpiece, completely off-the-cuff, ignoring the teleprompter. He created this folksy, compelling portrait of Barack Obama as a pragmatic, centrist leader. He explained Obama's economic policies with a clarity that Obama himself never could. Kevin: He basically translated Obama for the American people. He made him relatable, less aloof. I remember watching that speech. The media was mesmerized. It was seen as the moment that reignited Obama's campaign. Michael: It was. Bill had delivered. He had held up his end of the deal in the most spectacular way possible. And now, the Clintons were waiting for the payoff. They expected to be treated as partners, for the path to 2016 to be paved with gold. Kevin: And I have a feeling that’s not what happened. This is where the "Blood Feud" part of the title really kicks in, isn't it? Michael: This is where the book argues the ultimate deception took place. Just a week after that triumphant speech, on September 11, 2012, the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked. Four Americans were killed, including the ambassador. Kevin: A terrible tragedy, and a huge political crisis right before the election. Hillary was Secretary of State at the time, so it fell directly in her lap. Michael: It did. And according to Klein's account, this is where the Obama White House saw an opportunity to neutralize Hillary. The book alleges that the administration knew it was a coordinated terrorist attack but made a cold, calculated decision to blame it on a spontaneous protest over an anti-Muslim internet video. Kevin: The infamous video story. That narrative dominated the news for weeks. Why would they push that narrative if they knew it was false? Michael: To protect Obama's reelection. Admitting a major terrorist attack happened on his watch would have contradicted his campaign message that al-Qaeda was "on the run." So, Klein claims, Obama personally ordered Hillary to promote the false video narrative. She became the public face of the deception. Kevin: Wow. So from the Clintons' perspective, they didn't just get ignored, they got actively sabotaged. Bill gives the speech of a lifetime to save Obama's presidency, and their reward is Hillary being forced to take the fall for Benghazi, a scandal that would haunt her all the way through 2016. Michael: That's the core of the "feud." It was the ultimate betrayal. The book quotes Hillary from a private lunch with old college friends a year later, where she just unloads. She calls Obama "incompetent and feckless" and says, "there is no hand on the fucking tiller." She was furious, feeling that Obama had treated her and Bill "incredibly shabbily." Kevin: That language is raw. It’s not political disagreement; it’s personal contempt. It also explains so much about the tension that followed. But it also makes me think about Hillary's own confidence. The book mentions she believed the "Clinton Brand" was strong enough to overcome anything, even Benghazi. Was that just hubris? Michael: It seems so in retrospect. She expressed total confidence that her and Bill's reputation could weather the storm. But the Benghazi scandal stuck to her. It became a symbol of untrustworthiness for her opponents. The supposed payoff for their help in 2012 turned into a political anchor that helped sink her own ambitions. Kevin: And Bill Clinton isn't someone who just lets a betrayal like that go. He's a fighter. What does revenge look like for a former president? Michael: It looks like a quiet, systematic dismantling of your rival's legacy. The book details how, after Obama won, Bill immediately started planning for 2016. He began assembling a team for Hillary, and he did it by gleefully poaching Obama's top political operatives. Kevin: He raided Obama's talent pool? That's a cold move. Michael: A very cold move. He hired away Obama's campaign manager and top field organizers. Obama was reportedly furious and even called Hillary to complain, asking, "Can't you rein in Bill?" Her response, according to Klein, was a dismissive, "Are you serious? I can’t rein Bill in. Never have, never will." Kevin: That’s a declaration of war. It’s the Clintons signaling that the truce is over. They're taking back control of the party machinery, and Obama is about to become irrelevant. The blood feud is officially on.

Michael: Exactly. And that's the real takeaway from a book like Blood Feud. Whether you believe every single anonymous quote or not, it paints a compelling picture of what power struggles look like at the absolute highest level. This wasn't just a personal spat between two couples. It was a battle for the soul, the direction, and the future of the Democratic Party. Kevin: It’s a clash of two massive political brands. The Obamas, representing a newer, more progressive, and perhaps more idealistic vision of the party. And the Clintons, the ultimate pragmatists, the masters of the political game who built the party's modern infrastructure and felt they were its rightful owners. Michael: And the feud reveals a fundamental truth about power. It's not just about policy or ideology. It's deeply personal. It's about legacy, respect, and revenge. The book even ends on a somber note, with Bill Clinton facing serious health issues, driven by a desperate desire to live long enough to see Hillary back in the White House, to secure their dynasty and have the last laugh. Kevin: It’s almost tragic. All that ambition and intelligence, consumed by a rivalry that ultimately hurt them both. It makes you wonder, in politics, is there any room for genuine trust, or is it all just a series of temporary, self-serving alliances? Michael: That's the question that hangs over the entire book. It suggests that at that level, trust is a liability. Loyalty is a currency that can be spent and betrayed, and the ultimate prize is ensuring your story is the one that history remembers. Kevin: It’s a pretty cynical view, but based on this story, it’s hard to argue against. We'd love to know what you think. Is this just how the game is played, or is there something uniquely toxic about this particular rivalry? Let us know your thoughts on our socials. Michael: This is Aibrary, signing off.