Edward Klein – Blood Feud: Book Review & Audio Summary

Book Info

• Book name: Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. The Obamas
• Author: Edward Klein
• Genre: History & Politics, Biographies & Memoirs
• Pages: 336
• Published Year: 2014
• Publisher: Regnery Publishing
• Language: English

Audio Summary

Synopsis

In Blood Feud, journalist Edward Klein pulls back the curtain on one of the most consequential political rivalries in modern American history. The book chronicles the bitter animosity between the Clinton and Obama families, tracing tensions from the bruising 2008 Democratic primary through Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign. Klein reveals how personal slights, racial undertones, and wounded egos transformed political allies into enemies. Through insider accounts and controversial claims, he explores how Obama needed Clinton’s help to win reelection despite their mutual disdain, and how this uneasy alliance shaped the Democratic Party’s future. It’s a provocative look at the human drama behind the polished facade of American politics.

Key Takeaways

• The animosity between the Clintons and Obamas stems from perceived personal slights during the 2008 presidential campaign, with both families harboring deep resentments that go beyond policy differences.
• Despite their mutual disdain, political necessity forced Obama to seek Bill Clinton’s support for his 2012 reelection, demonstrating how personal feelings often take a backseat to political survival.
• Bill Clinton’s economic credibility and appeal to white working-class voters proved crucial to Obama’s reelection strategy, showing that in politics, yesterday’s enemy can become today’s essential ally.
• The book illustrates how modern political feuds, while no longer settled with violence, still involve calculated manipulation, strategic alliances, and long-term planning for revenge.

My Summary

When Political Necessity Meets Personal Hatred

I’ll be honest—when I first picked up Edward Klein’s “Blood Feud,” I expected another dry political tell-all. What I got instead was something closer to a Shakespearean drama set in the halls of power. Klein, a veteran journalist who’s spent decades covering politics, takes us inside one of the most fascinating and bitter rivalries in contemporary American politics: the feud between the Clintons and the Obamas.

The book’s central premise is simple but explosive: behind the carefully staged photo ops and coordinated campaign appearances, these two Democratic power families genuinely despise each other. And I mean really despise each other. We’re talking about the kind of animosity where Hillary Clinton allegedly drops F-bombs at college reunions when discussing Obama’s competence.

What makes this book particularly relevant, even years after its 2014 publication, is how it helps us understand the fault lines within the Democratic Party that persist today. The tensions Klein describes didn’t disappear—they evolved and influenced everything from Hillary’s 2016 campaign to the current political landscape.

The Origins of a Political Blood Feud

Klein traces the roots of this animosity back to the 2008 Democratic primary, one of the most contentious in modern history. For those of us who lived through it, we remember the surface tensions. But Klein digs deeper, revealing the personal wounds that never healed.

According to Klein’s sources, Bill Clinton felt that Obama had essentially accused him of racism during the campaign. For a president who prided himself on his relationship with the African American community and was once dubbed “America’s first Black president” by Toni Morrison, this was a devastating blow. The implication that he had played the race card against Obama cut deep.

But it wasn’t just about race. Obama had also made comments suggesting that Ronald Reagan had been a transformational president in ways that Bill Clinton hadn’t been. For Clinton, who desperately wanted to be remembered alongside FDR and Reagan in the pantheon of great presidents, this was personal. It struck at the heart of his legacy, his sense of historical importance.

Klein reports that Bill’s hatred became so visceral that he told associates Obama was the man he hated more than anyone he’d ever met. That’s a remarkable statement from someone who’s been in politics for decades and presumably has accumulated quite a list of enemies.

Hillary’s Grievances Run Just as Deep

Hillary’s resentment took a different form but was equally intense. The Obama campaign’s suggestion that she couldn’t be trusted—that political calculation rather than conviction drove her—wounded her deeply. For someone who had spent decades in public service, this attack on her character and authenticity was particularly painful.

The Obamas, for their part, weren’t exactly sending Christmas cards to the Clintons either. Michelle Obama reportedly held grudges dating back to Hillary’s time at Wellesley College, where she had aggressively attacked Edward Brooke, the first African American U.S. Senator. The Obamas viewed this as evidence of racial insensitivity.

Then there was Bill’s lifestyle and business dealings. The Obamas allegedly viewed Bill’s private jet travels and connections to questionable businessmen as morally compromising. Klein even mentions the jet being dubbed “Air Fuck One” by critics—a detail that, whether verified or not, captures the contempt some felt toward Clinton’s post-presidential lifestyle.

The 2012 Reelection Crisis

Here’s where the book gets really interesting from a political strategy standpoint. By August 2011, Obama was in trouble. His approval ratings had dropped to 41%, and he was losing the independent voters who had been crucial to his 2008 victory. Even worse, Oprah Winfrey—whose support had been instrumental in 2008—felt burned by broken promises of White House access and announced she wouldn’t be supporting his reelection.

This is the moment where political necessity collided head-on with personal animosity. Obama needed help, and there was really only one Democrat with the star power and credibility to provide it: Bill Clinton.

Klein describes a fascinating internal debate within Obama’s team. Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s closest adviser, argued strenuously against bringing Clinton into the campaign. Her concerns were practical: Clinton was manipulative, impossible to control, and would demand too much in return. She understood that making a deal with Clinton meant incurring a debt that would have to be repaid.

David Plouffe took the opposite view. He argued that Clinton’s involvement wasn’t just helpful—it was essential. Clinton could reach white working-class voters in a way Obama couldn’t. He could defend Obama’s economic record with credibility that Obama himself lacked. Without Clinton, Plouffe believed, Obama might actually lose.

The Golf Game That Changed Everything

Obama ultimately sided with Plouffe, but Klein reports that Jarrett had planted a seed: after the election, Obama could simply abandon whatever promises he’d made to Clinton. This detail, if true, reveals the cynical calculation at the heart of modern politics. It wasn’t about building genuine alliances or healing wounds—it was about winning at any cost.

The actual recruitment happened over a game of golf, that classic setting for political dealmaking. Clinton agreed to help, but Klein suggests he had his own ulterior motives. Yes, he wanted to secure Obama’s support for Hillary’s eventual 2016 run. But he also saw an opportunity for what Klein calls “treachery”—a chance to position himself and Hillary for maximum advantage while appearing to be the loyal party elder.

Clinton’s Economic Rescue Mission

What exactly did Clinton do to help Obama? The most important contribution was rehabilitating Obama’s economic record. In 2011, 56% of voters considered “Obamanomics” a failure. The economy was still struggling years after the 2008 financial crisis, and voters were losing patience.

Clinton brought unique credibility to this issue. He had left office with a budget surplus. The 1990s were remembered as a time of prosperity. When Clinton spoke about economics, people listened in a way they didn’t when Obama spoke.

Klein describes Clinton’s appearances at campaign stops, where he would patiently explain that recovering from a housing bubble typically takes ten years. He provided historical context and economic expertise that helped voters understand that perhaps their expectations for Obama had been unrealistic. This wasn’t just spin—it was education, and it came from someone voters trusted on economic matters.

The impact was significant. Clinton’s involvement helped Obama reconnect with working-class white voters, particularly in crucial swing states. His endorsement and active campaigning provided cover for Democrats who were nervous about Obama’s record. In essence, Clinton gave permission for wavering Democrats to stick with Obama.

The Broader Implications for Modern Politics

Reading “Blood Feud” years after its publication, I’m struck by how much it illuminates about our current political moment. The book isn’t just about two families who don’t like each other—it’s about how personal relationships, ego, and grudges shape political outcomes in ways we rarely see.

Klein’s narrative reveals the transactional nature of modern political alliances. Obama and Clinton didn’t reconcile their differences or come to mutual understanding. They struck a deal. Each got something they needed, and genuine warmth or trust never entered the equation. This is politics stripped of its idealistic veneer.

The book also highlights the enduring importance of political dynasties in American democracy. Both the Clintons and Obamas represent family brands as much as individual politicians. Michelle Obama’s potential political future, Hillary’s presidential ambitions, Chelsea Clinton’s public profile—these families think in generational terms, planning moves that will pay off years or even decades later.

The Role of Personal Grievance in Policy

One of the most troubling implications of Klein’s account is how personal animosity can influence governance. If the President and his most prominent party allies despise each other, how does that affect policy decisions? How does it influence appointments, legislative priorities, or responses to crises?

Klein doesn’t fully explore these questions, but they linger. We like to think that our leaders rise above personal feelings to do what’s best for the country. “Blood Feud” suggests that’s often naive. Personal relationships matter enormously, and wounded egos can have policy consequences.

This feels particularly relevant in our current political environment, where personality often seems to matter more than policy. The Trump era demonstrated how personal loyalty and perceived slights can drive political decisions. Klein’s book suggests this isn’t new—it’s how politics has always worked, just usually better hidden.

Applying These Insights to Understanding Current Politics

So what can we learn from “Blood Feud” that applies to our daily lives and political understanding? First, it’s a reminder to look beyond the official narratives. When politicians appear together, smiling and unified, there may be deep animosity just beneath the surface. Understanding these hidden dynamics helps us interpret political events more accurately.

Second, the book illustrates the importance of pragmatism in politics. Obama needed Clinton despite hating him. This kind of pragmatic alliance-building happens at every level of politics, from local school boards to international diplomacy. Recognizing that former enemies can become allies when interests align helps us understand why political coalitions form and dissolve.

Third, Klein’s account reminds us that politicians are human. They hold grudges, feel wounded by criticism, and let ego drive decisions. This doesn’t excuse poor judgment, but it does help us understand why smart people sometimes make seemingly irrational choices. The personal is always political.

Fourth, the book demonstrates how crucial surrogate campaigning and endorsements remain in modern politics. Clinton’s economic credibility helped Obama in ways that millions of dollars in advertising couldn’t match. This suggests that authentic voices and trusted validators matter more than ever in an age of information overload and declining trust in institutions.

Strengths and Significant Limitations

I need to be upfront about this book’s controversial nature. Klein has been criticized for relying on anonymous sources and for presenting unverified claims as fact. Some reviewers have accused him of bias toward the Clintons, while others say he’s simply trafficking in gossip rather than serious political analysis.

These criticisms have merit. Klein makes explosive claims—like Hillary’s alleged use of profanity about Obama at a college reunion—without always providing verifiable sourcing. As readers, we’re asked to trust his unnamed sources, which is a big ask in an era of “fake news” accusations and declining trust in journalism.

The book also sometimes reads more like a soap opera than serious political history. There’s an emphasis on personal drama—who said what about whom, who felt slighted, who’s plotting revenge—that can feel gossipy. If you’re looking for deep policy analysis or serious examination of governance challenges, you won’t find much of that here.

That said, Klein is an experienced journalist who’s covered politics for decades. He’s written for The New York Times, Newsweek, and other respected publications. While his methods may be controversial, he’s not a complete outsider making wild claims. And frankly, some of the book’s allegations have been supported by subsequent reporting and the public behavior of the principals involved.

Comparing “Blood Feud” to Other Political Tell-Alls

How does this book stack up against other political exposés? It’s more gossipy than Bob Woodward’s meticulously sourced works, but also more readable and entertaining. It doesn’t have the insider access of memoirs from actual administration officials, but it also isn’t constrained by loyalty or the need to protect relationships.

In some ways, “Blood Feud” is closer to the work of authors like Michael Wolff (“Fire and Fury”) who prioritize compelling narrative over exhaustive verification. Whether that’s a strength or weakness depends on what you’re looking for. If you want court-admissible evidence, look elsewhere. If you want a provocative, entertaining account that may contain important truths even if every detail isn’t verified, Klein delivers.

The book also reminds me of “Game Change” by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, which similarly revealed behind-the-scenes drama from the 2008 campaign. Both books were controversial, both were criticized for sourcing, and both provided insights that helped readers understand political events in new ways.

Questions Worth Pondering

Klein’s book raises fascinating questions that extend beyond the Clinton-Obama feud. How much should personal relationships matter in politics? Is it naive to expect leaders to rise above personal animosity? Or should we demand that they do so as a basic requirement of leadership?

There’s also the question of political dynasties. Is it healthy for American democracy that the same families—Clintons, Bushes, Kennedys, now potentially Obamas—dominate our politics for generations? Does this concentration of power and influence serve the public interest, or does it create an insular political class disconnected from ordinary Americans?

And what about the transactional nature of political alliances that Klein describes? Should we be troubled that Obama and Clinton’s reconciliation was purely strategic, or is that just how politics works? Is there value in authentic relationships between leaders, or is effectiveness all that matters?

Final Thoughts on a Controversial but Illuminating Book

Look, “Blood Feud” isn’t perfect. It’s gossipy, some claims are questionable, and Klein’s sourcing leaves much to be desired. But I’d argue it’s still worth reading, especially for anyone trying to understand the Democratic Party’s internal dynamics over the past fifteen years.

The book captures something true about modern politics: it’s personal, it’s petty, and it’s driven by ego and ambition as much as by ideology or public service. Whether or not every anecdote Klein reports is accurate, the broader picture he paints rings true. Politicians are human, with all the flaws and grudges that entails.

For those of us at Books4soul.com who love diving into the human stories behind historical events, “Blood Feud” delivers. It’s a reminder that history isn’t just made by abstract forces or inevitable trends—it’s made by people with feelings, resentments, and personal agendas.

I’d love to hear from others who’ve read this book. Did you find Klein’s account credible? How has reading it changed your understanding of Obama’s presidency or Hillary’s 2016 campaign? And more broadly, how much do you think personal relationships should matter in politics? Drop your thoughts in the comments—let’s have a conversation about the very human drama behind our political system.