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)

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

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

Product Details

Part IV: Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett

        Ed Klein's Blood Feud portrays Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett as the power behind the president's throne. They control access to the president, they have the final say on who he appoints in the executive branch, and these two women shape policy. They are ambitious for Barack Obama and also for themselves. Ed Klein tells us they have already laid plans for their career after the end of Obama's presidency. Both women despise the Clintons and have been the driving force behind the feud from the Obama corner.

Michelle and Valerie have so much influence over the president because he trusts them both completely. They have been the closest women to him personally over the years. Sources close to the Obama family told Ed Klein that both women are mother figures who provide the maternal need Barack never got from his own mother - a globe trotter who often left him alone with extended family members for long periods of time.

Like Barack's own mother, Michelle's love is conditional (much like Bill's love for Hillary); he feels he must achieve great things in politics to earn her affection and praise. They sleep in separate rooms in the White House and also on vacation. They travel separately on vacation and frequently take separate vacations. 

Michelle is a control freak who's constantly harping on Barack over all details of daily life, big and small. He doesn't seem to mind. He says, "She keeps me focused." Yet, she is often unsympathetic to his emotional needs and always shows him tough love.

Valerie Jarrett on the other hand gives Obama affection (platonic, as far as anyone knows). She has been his preeminent political adviser since the Chicago days and is a household member of the Obamas in the West Wing. She sleeps in the Lincoln room and dines with the First Family most evenings. Barack and Michelle go to her to solve marital disputes arising between them and for general emotional support. She listens to their needs affectionately. 

The Obamas look to Valerie Jarrett for advice on all matters personal and political. She feeds their disdain for the Clintons. Klein's sources tell of late night chats in which Michelle and Valerie gossip about Hildebeest (their nickname for Hillary Clinton). Jarrett and the Obamas have never forgiven Bill Clinton for his personal corruption and his betrayal of left-wing causes during his own presidency. They reject all advice from people they deem Clintonian

Valerie Jarrett fought strenuously against David Plouffe's case to recruit Bill Clinton for the 2012 campaign. She gave way after her feelers to Oprah Winfrey were refused. Nevertheless, Jarrett told Barack, "Promise Clinton anything, but you're the president. You make the rules." When it's over, "give him nothing."

Hillary Clinton tells her friends that Valerie Jarrett practically runs the Obama administration. One day, she and Bill paid a visit to Caroline Kennedy after she'd been asked by Obama to serve as ambassador to Japan. Caroline asked Hillary for advice on how to succeed with her new superiors in the state department. Hillary told a shocked Kennedy that the state department people are irrelevant in this administration. She said, "You'll take your orders from Valerie Jarrett," adding, "and she's not shy."

Valerie Jarrett's aides have leaked information to Ed Klein about her's and Michelle's future plans. One option under consideration is the Illinois seat in the U.S. Senate that will be opening-up in 2016. The First Lady is considering a run for that office and Valerie Jarrett is already building Michelle's resume by lobbying friendly Democrats in Congress to attach her name to bills allowing the First Lady to have a legislative record by the time she leaves the White House.

That a successful Senate run may develop into presidential prospects for Michelle Obama has not been lost on Jarrett and the Obamas. During Clinton's tense golf game with Obama in which Barack asked the former president to campaign for him in 2012, Bill made it clear that Hillary had her sights set for 2016. After an agonizingly awkward silence, Barack Obama told Bill Clinton, "You know, Michelle would make a great presidential candidate." Bill Clinton barely contained his disgust at Barack Obama equating Michelle as a contender for the presidency on par with Hillary. Whatever Michelle's plans post-2016 may be, Valerie Jarrett has indicated she will continue as a major partner.

Next time, we will discuss Barack Obama and the final thoughts of Ed Klein's absorbing book.

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.