Uncovering The Fiercest Feud In Us Politics: The Clinton-Obama Rivalry
If you’re looking to comprehend US politics, blood feuds must not go unnoticed.
A prime example is the animosity between past, present and (perhaps) future presidents that has been growing for years.
From the Benghazi incident to Bill Clinton’s coffee suggestion, one can discover how each side of the aisle has tried to one-up each other or make subtle jabs at the opposing party.
Even Obama declared that Reagan was a better president than Clinton!
In these sections, you’ll uncover what lies beneath all the spin and PR in an effort to understand both current and upcoming US presidential candidates their pandering ways..
The Long-Standing Grudge Between The Clintons And The Obamas Reveals Core Differences In Values
It’s no secret that the animosity between the Clintons and the Obamas runs deep.
It all started in 2008 during the presidential election, when Bill felt Obama had essentially put out a “hit job” on him by calling him a racist and minimizing his legacy.
Furthermore, Obama had snubbed Clinton by suggesting that Reagan was more impactful than him as president.
Matters were further inflamed because Obama seemed to be ignoring Bill’s advice on issues of policy and campaign strategy, even turning down his offer of help.
This was particularly egregious to Bill since George W Bush had sought his advice many times over.
Hillary too held a grudge against Obama after his campaign suggested she couldn’t be trusted– and said her attitude was shaped by political calculation rather than conviction.
Meanwhile Michelle took issue with Hillary’s attack on Edward Brooke, which occurred when she attended Wellesley College.
Obama Had To Put Aside Personal And Political Differences To Make An Unfortunate Deal With Bill Clinton
By August 2011, President Obama realized that his re-election bid in 2012 hinged on the Clintons’ support.
According to a Gallup poll, only 41 percent of voting-age Americans thought he was doing a “good job” and the Pew poll showed only 37 percent of independent voters who voted Obama in 2008 wanted him re-elected.
Moreover, Oprah Winfrey, who had heavily supported Obama during his successful campaign in 2008 felt let down when her access to the White House never materialized.
With no help from the so called “Oprah effect” it left Obama with one option – to call upon Bill Clinton for help.
Even with some conflicted opinions between his advisors David Plouffe and Valerie Jarrett as to if this was a wise decision or not, Obama still chose Plouffe’s idea to enlist Clinton for his upcoming re-election campaign because Clinton could help attract white, working-class voters who seemed hard for Obama to reach out too.
In the end, it seemed like Obama made the right decision by relying on Bill Clinton’s popularity and eventually winning re-election in 2012.
Clinton’S Speech At The 2012 Democratic National Convention: Implicitly Advocating For His Own Agenda While Boosting Obama’S Campaign
When Obama and Bill Clinton met to discuss the 2012 election, it became clear that there was an ulterior motive; Clinton was hoping to secure Obama’s support for Hillary in 2016.
However, in order to get Obama re-elected, Clinton had to cheerlead his economic policies despite them being viewed as a failure by 56 percent of eligible voters at that time.
Playing on his high approval ratings from when he was the president himself, Clinton rallied people behind Obama’s errant policies with the rationale that it takes 10 full years after a burst housing bubble for the economy fully recover.
In addition, he also gave a speech at the Democratic National Convention which painted Obama as a centrist Democrat rather than the left-leaning liberal he actually was – implicitly promoting his own wife in the process.
The election clearly shows that Bill Clinton’s public support helped get Barack Obama re-elected – but it came at a cost; he helped promote Obama policies which he may not have fully believed in, and further entrenched his wife as a top candidate for 2016 presidential race.
Obama Sacrifices Hillary To Cover Up His Inactions Surrounding The Benghazi Attack
The Benghazi controversy exacerbated the discord between the Clintons and Obamas.
The attack on September 11 2012, on the US diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, killed four innocent American citizens–among those was beloved ambassador Christopher Stevens–and put President Obama in the hot seat to assign blame.
Obama initially had Hillary Clinton take the heat with an official State Department release that claimed that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to a blasphemous video online that demeaned Prophet Muhammad–a discreditably false story.
Hillary was aware that this narrative could cost her her standing with Americans and ultimately destroy any chance of being elected in 2016, yet she was forced to accommodate Obama’s cover-up request; evidence of this unfolded when she testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and lost her temper when asked about why those four lives were taken.
Furthermore, during VP Joe Biden’s debate against Paul Ryan he stated that State Department had not alerted White House requesting additional security measures for Benghazi outpost placing full accountability on Hillary.
Bill Clinton believed this placed all responsibility directly onto his wife’s shoulders to discredit any chance of being nominated for presidency making him furious at President Obama for failing to uphold their mutual promise fixed back in 2008 presidential election.
This act only further fuelled hatred between both camps thereby deepening already existing feud between Clintons and Obamas.
Bill Clinton Uses The Obama Presidency To Advance His Own Political Ambitions
Once it became clear that Obama would not support Hillary in 2016, the Clintons began to exact their revenge.
They saw Obama’s blundering during his second term as an opportunity and used it to their advantage – from the disastrous roll-out of Obamacare, which promised more than could be delivered, to Obama’s lack of leadership in handling the civil war in Syria.
Bill Clinton was quick to point this out by using a number of his public appearances, including an interview with Ozy magazine and a joint event with John McCain.
He called even called the Obamacare program a fiasco while implying that Hillary would never have made such amateurish mistakes.
Similarly he chided Obama for his inaction on a proposed military intervention in Syria, accusing him of looking like a “wuss” and a “fool” if he did nothing.
Through these careful attacks, Bill and Hillary succeeded in making political capital and furthering her chances for the 2016 presidential election.
It was only when Obama took no action on supporting her campaign for President did they see the opportunity to exact their revenge – an opportunity which both seized.
The book “Blood Feud” by Edward Klein offers an inside look at the intense rivalry between the Clintons and the Obamas.
As one of the most powerful political families in America, both sides have a history of broken promises and betrayal.
The result is a deep-seated hatred between these two influential families that can be felt all the way to Washington D.C.!
In the end, this book serves as a reminder to always stay vigilant and not give in to mistrust and animosity— no matter your political background.