Howard Chandler Christy Depicts The Founders Signing The U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787. "Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States" (1940)

Saturday, July 5, 2014

Book Study: Blood Feud - The Clintons Vs. The Obamas Part III


Product Details


Part III: Bill Clinton and the Betrayed Deal

        Ed Klein's sources are people close to the Clintons and they portrayed for Blood Feud a former president who lives and breathes for the purpose of getting back into the White House. Since losing the 2008 Democratic primary to the Obamas, the Clintons have been furiously rebuilding their supremacy over their party. Hillary's mansion in New York and Bill's apartment above the presidential library in Little Rock have been the focus major fundraising, partying, and deal making - all for the purpose of wresting control of the Democratic party away from the Obama faction.

During Obama's first term, Bill's strategy was to overcome the mutual animosity with the Obamas by making Barack Obama beholden to the Clintons. It began in 2008 with Hillary rallying her partisans behind the Obama campaign following its triumph over her in the primaries. It continued with her accepting the cabinet job of secretary of state. It reached its peak when Bill Clinton agreed to help Barack Obama's re-election effort in 2012.

Bill Clinton was initially excited about Hillary's prospects as the in-coming secretary of state. He imagined she would be a shaper of foreign policy and that she would get big things done in the Middle East, with Russia, and elsewhere. The world's stage would be her arena to look presidential and she would build her resume for 2016. Bill expected to be called-on by President Obama to advise him on policy, much like George W. Bush did from time to time.

Unfortunately, it quickly became clear that the Obama team wanted nothing to do with Bill Clinton and allowed Hillary Clinton no freedom of action on foreign policy. She was expected to follow orders and (like the rest of the cabinet) was only invited to policy meetings to agree to policy decisions that had already been made by the president's shadow team (i.e. his Chicago advisers) in advance. 

Bill Clinton flew into rants every time Obama was mentioned by his friends at Little Rock gatherings. He complained "I have no relationship with the president. Even George W. Bush use to call me up for advice." 

Bill and Hillary were never invited to dine at the White House during Obama's first term. (The one and only time the Obamas asked them to come over for dinner was in 2013, and it was very unpleasant and awkward for both parties.)

Clinton always thought Obama was a catastrophe who was out of his depth as president of the United States. Clinton told friends that the president was an "amateur" who knows nothing about how to run the government. The best Clinton could hope-for was for the president to call on him for a big favor. He told Hillary, "I got to get this guy to owe me big."

Certainly - to forestall another left wing Democrat rebellion against the Clintons in 2016 - Bill thought it best to have Barack Obama in his corner. His first opportunity came in the fall of 2011. That summer, President Obama's poll numbers plummeted to the lowest of his presidency. (Slightly lower than they are now). His campaign team was in a panic over strategy. David Plouffe told him the only way to win in 2012 was to recruit the help of Bill Clinton. Valerie Jarrett was dead against it. She despised the Clintons and instead implored the president to reach out to Oprah Winfrey. Plouffe won out after Oprah - still sore from her own wounds dealt by the Obamas - refused to help.

Begrudgingly, Obama invited Bill Clinton to a game of golf at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. There, he said to the former president, "I want you to campaign for me in 2012." Bill told Hillary, "Now I've got him!"

Bill Clinton thought he had a deal that Barack Obama would back Hillary in 2016 if Bill got Barack re-elected in 2012. Klein has several chapters leading up to the dramatic moment when Clinton delivered the crowning endorsement speech at the DNC on the second night of the convention. Obama received an immediate boost in the polls immediately afterward. 

In building-up the tension of that moment, Klein claims the Romney team was gathering momentum in the polling across the summer of 2012. That's not the way this reader remembers it. The only time I recall Romney ever having a tie or a lead over President Obama was after the first debate - well after the conventions.

By all accounts, Clinton's endorsement helped Obama's re-election. In the mind of the forty-second president - of course - it made all the difference. After the election, Bill Clinton received the cold shoulder for his work. President Obama ignored his calls and gave Clinton no public thanks (just a private call thanking him on election night.) Then one night, Obama finally returned Clinton's call and told him he was keeping his "options open for 2016." Clinton was so infuriated he hung up the phone on the president of the United States.

As 2012 rolled into 2013, Bill Clinton went from wooing Barack Obama behind Hillary 2016 to threatening his second term agenda unless the president made good on the "deal". This was made clear when Bill sent his aide, Doug Band and a few others to the White House to convey the threat. After the administration had tried to hang Benghazi on Hillary, it was open season as far as Bill was concerned.

Consequently, 2013 saw the Obamas throwing a few half-hearted tokens the Clintons' way. The president was featured with Hillary on 60 Minutes in which he praised her service as secretary of state. He invited her to a private luncheon at the White House. Then, he finally had the Clintons over for dinner. In all these small gestures, the president offered them nothing in the way of support for 2016. Bill Clinton was convinced the president had no intention of backing Hillary or relinquishing his control over the DNC in the run-up to the next election.

Ed Klein tells us Bill Clinton is in the process of making good on his threat to wreck Obama's second term and pave the way to a Clinton victory in 2016. After the Affordable Care Act went into affect and millions of individually insured Americans lost their healthcare plan in contradiction to the president's promise to the contrary, Bill Clinton didn't let Obama off the hook. He came out to the press and said, "The president should honor the commitment he made to the American people." When the president waffled over the "red line" over chemical weapons in Syria, Bill Clinton said Obama risked "looking like a wuss."

The most tangible way Bill Clinton has harmed Obama's second term has been by hiring his advisers away from him, thereby denying the White House its most effective demographers and statistics analysts. Klein names these top advisers in the book, and how Bill Clinton is snatching Obama's team away from him. Exasperated, Obama called up Hillary after Jim Messina switched allegiances. He asked Hillary if she would "rein-in Bill", saying "I can't lose these people." She told the president, "I can't rein-in Bill. Never could." And that was that.

Bill told Hillary that they will need to run against the Obama administration to win in the next election. He said, "The voters are turning against him and we will need to. We have to make it clear that this is going to be a third Clinton term, not a third Obama term."

Next, we will have a look at the supremacy of Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett in the shaping of the Obama presidency.

Patriot Thought

 

 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Visitor Comments

The dated links and statements below show interaction between the readers and makers of this blog to further the marketplace of ideas that enrich the education of patriots. Certain opinions made to posts are excerpted and re-posted here to highlight interesting discussions by fellow patriots.

Chris CJuly 28, 2013 at 12:31 PM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

I think it is absurd to draw a moral equivalence between innocent until proven guilty and guilty until proven innocent. It should be clear that one is far more protective and respectful of individual rights than the other. It's ironic that you attack the American system here, when it obviously takes more into account that someone could be falsely accused. Hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution rather than the defense.

DonaldJuly 28, 2013 at 8:27 AM[writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

It is interesting because the American Justice system goes from a innocent until proven guilty point of view. It definitely is no better in China where it is from a guilty until proven innocent point of view. Both are flawed because both lend themselves to being tainted with corruption as well as the norms of society.

Living the JourneyJuly 26, 2013 at 10:11 AM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

I found it interesting that Donald's perception of how America out to be was originally influenced by American fiction. This reminds me of when I arrived in China the first time expecting to see sword toting warriors running on the roofs of ancient temple like buildings. I was definitely surprised by reality.

Donald
July 26, 2013 at 9:09 AM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

Long before Zimmerman was pronounced innocent, people in my country were laughing at the thought of a white man (yes he is white Hispanic really) being found guilty of killing a black teenager. That will never happen they say. When things like that happen, it is the stuff of legend and stories and hollywood scripts. Look at some of the greatest literature found out there (to kill a mocking bird for example). It is the stand of the downtrodden black defendant who triumphs over the hard and brutal white man. This in itself is a tragedy as well because of the stereotypical vision people then have of the US as in the case of many of my country people as well as others from other countries in their view of America.

Anonymous
December 28, 2012 12:13 PM [writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

I do believe in evil but I also believe that Adam Lanza had mental issues that weren't being addressed. Also, he had been abandoned by his father whom he hadn't seen in over 2 years and who had a second family which Adam was not a part of. Adam had been assigned a school psychologist but somewhere along the line he dropped through the cracks and didn't get the care he needed that could possibly have prevented this tragedy. We'll never know...

Living the JourneyDecember 31, 2012 7:16 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

How can evil be defined in a pluralistic society? Is morality something decided by vote? And then following that question, how can evil be "treated"? Jason, I think you're trying to open a door that very few want to walk through because if we do, we are forced to make choices about things many would like to leave "relative".

Anonymous
December 31, 2012 7:36 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

I think we should stop offering up drug store psychology and focus on the one common denominator- GUNS. Psychotic people exist in all cultures, nations and religions. Look at the countries in the world with strict gun control laws; such as Japan, Australia, Canada to name a few, and they have far less violence involving guns. Are you blaming secularism? Science? The devil made him do it! Right? Simply, Adam Lanza and other mass murderers are mentally ill. So let's make it impossible for people like him to obtain guns of mass destruction.

Jason Aldous
December 31, 2012 10:56 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

Dear Living the Journey, We will always have tragedies so long as there is evil. Evil as such can not be cured through government policy. On the contrary, its work can only be limited through choices made by individuals.

Dear Anonymous, I do blame secular reasoning for making it difficult for us to address the problem. If you take good and evil out of your worldview, morally you can not say there is anything wrong with what Adam Lanza did. You may be horrified at what he did, but you can not judge it against any standards, if good and evil are removed as avenues of inquiry.

Jason AldousDecember 27, 2012 6:39 PM [writing in response to Wednesday, December 26, 2012: Gun Control Part 3: The Second Amendment (A Legal Analysis)]

Let's see, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Even if the wording implies that the populace must be armed when called up for militia service, it says "the right of the people shall not be infringed." Since the amendment states that bearing arms is a "right" and "not to be infringed" it is an open and shut case for anyone taking an objective reading of it. "Rights" are entitlements. Privileges can be taken away, but not rights. It matters not if this right was given with militia service in mind. Good work, Mr. Emma.


AnonymousDecember 17, 2012 3:46 PM [writing in response to Monday, December 17, 2012, Gun Control Part 2: Would Society Be Better Off If All Guns Were Made Illegal? (A Reasonable Treatment)]

On my part, I think that all guns should definitely be regulated and strictly controlled. Its interesting that almost all Americans point to the 2nd amendment. From my point of view, this 2nd Amendment was written in a time when there was 'trust' among people and their government. Today this trust has been flushed down the drain

AnonymousDecember 17, 2012 5:26 PM [writing in response to Monday, December 17, 2012, Gun Control Part 2: Would Society Be Better Off If All Guns Were Made Illegal? (A Reasonable Treatment)]

In 1959, 60% of the American public favored a ban on handguns. Today, the majority of the American people don't even support a ban on assault rifles. Why? Because since 1959, the argument that tighter gun control would reduce crime has been effectively refuted in the mind of the public. The change in attitude toward gun control is primarily due to fear of crime rather than distrust of government.


GeoDecember 8, 2012 2:11 PM [writing in response to Friday, December 7, 2012, Pearl Harbor: Was It Japan's Fault, or America's? (Conspiracy Theory vs. History)]

FDR campainged on keeping the US out of the war but when he wanted to get into the war he needed an excuse. He may very well have been tempted to withhold information from his top commanders at Pearl Harbor. They certainly suspected he did.

GeoDecember 8, 2012 at 1:28 PM[writing in response to Saturday, December 1, 2012, Voting In A Bad Economy, Recession Myths: De-Constructing Historical Falsification]

Can't argue with your observations, Jason, but even with the limited space no mention of the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs in any discussion of Hoover/Great Depression/FDR is to ignore an elephant in the room.

Chris CDecember 7, 2012 at 4:40 PM[writing in response to Tuesday, November 27, 2012, The Next Great American President: Who We Need To Look For In 2016]

One qualm: I don't think Suez can be regarded as a long-term success for Eisenhower. It bought us no credibility with the developing world and managed to alienate important Allies. As a result, we got no real help from Britain in Vietnam and plenty of hostility from France in the 1960's. France's desire to oppose or sabotage us on key issues has continued to this day.