MotherJones Blog: A Top Clinton Aide Fights a Blast from the Past

«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

A Top Clinton Aide Fights a Blast from the Past

Jamie Rubin called me a few days ago, and he was upset. A top foreign policy aide in the Hillary Clinton campaign and a past assistant secretary of state for public affairs, Rubin believed he had been slimed by the Obama campaign, and he suggested I had been an unwitting party to the sliming.

Here's what happened. Days earlier, the Clinton campaign had held a conference call to blast away at remarks recently made by Samantha Power regarding Senator Barack Obama's Iraq policy. That morning, Power, a talented journalist, academic, and human rights advocate, had resigned as a foreign policy adviser to Obama after a newspaper reported she had called Hillary Clinton a "monster." And during this conference call, Clinton's senior foreign policy aides insisted that Power's comments about Obama and Iraq suggested that Obama was not truly committed to withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. During that call, Rubin, as I wrote afterward, "derided Power as Obama's foreign policy 'Svengali or guru' and claimed her remarks about Iraq were proof that Obama cannot create an efficient and effective foreign policy team, calling the episode 'amateur hour' for the Obama campaign."

Rubin and the Clintonites' interpretation of Power's statements about Obama and Iraq was debatable, and their assault on Power struck some (read: me) as overkill and ugly.

Shortly after that conference call, the Obama campaign circulated a Washington Post clip to reporters that made it seem as if Rubin himself had his own "amateur hour" moment in 2004, when he was working for John Kerry's presidential campaign. The newspaper reported that Rubin had apologized for having misrepresented Kerry's position on Iraq by stating that Kerry would have probably launched a war against Saddam Hussein had Kerry been president in the preceding four years. (The George W. Bush campaign was enthusiastically using Rubin's statement to claim there was not much difference between the two candidates on Iraq.) The Post published a statement from Rubin: "To the extent that my own comments have contributed to misunderstanding on this issue...I never should have said the phrase 'in all probability' because that's not Kerry's position and he's never said it. That was my mistake."

A-ha! the Obama campaign was saying: Rubin's now slamming Power for an action similar to one he committed in 2004. In an article on the get-Power conference call, I reprinted a portion of this Post story.

After reading my piece, Rubin was livid at the Obama gang. Why? Because the Post story was false. Or sort of. At least enough so that it was, in Rubin's view, not fair for the Obama camp to be disseminating it.

So Rubin contacted me to give his side of the story--an account that is backed up by a source whom I trust who also worked on the Kerry campaign in 2004--and it goes like this: In August 2004, Rubin was interviewed about Kerry's position on the war by Jim VandeHei, then a reporter for the Post, and the following paragraph appeared in the middle of VandeHei's subsequent article:

Knowing then what he knows today about the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Kerry still would have voted to authorize the war and "in all probability" would have launched a military attack to oust Hussein by now if he were president, Kerry national security adviser Jamie Rubin said in an interview Saturday. As recently as Friday, the Massachusetts senator had said he only "might" have still gone to war.

Rubin's reported remark was seen within the Kerry campaign as a "political disaster," according to Robert Shrum, Kerry's top campaign strategist. The Kerryites were attempting to portray their man as a leader who never would have misguided the nation into a mess like Iraq. Now a top Kerry aide appeared to be saying that Kerry probably would have followed the course Bush chose.

But Rubin's remark was not fully (or, as he puts it, accurately) reported. What Rubin had said--and a later Post piece did note this--was, "In all probability, [Kerry] would have launched a military invasion with the support of the rest of the world by now." And by that Rubin meant--as he later wrote in a 2007 letter to Shrum--that Kerry "in all probability" would have gone to war if the "entire world had concluded that Saddam Hussein would never comply [with U.N. resolutions compelling it to disarm] and the whole world supported us." That was not a controversial point. If Saddam had not complied with U.N. demands and if the "whole world" had decided that military action was necessary, Kerry would have attacked Iraq. Acknowledging this was not saying much, and Rubin's statement did not contradict Kerry's stated position at the time. (But Rubin had been addressing an irrelevant hypothetical, for Saddam had been cooperating with international arms inspectors before Bush launched the invasion of Iraq.)

Yet if Rubin's words had been twisted--if he had not misstated Kerry's position in his interview with VandeHei--why did he weeks later apologize and say he had made a mistake? In his letter to Shrum--which Rubin wrote in response to Shrum's account of this episode in his memoirs--Rubin noted that Kerry campaign aides

suggested that to defend myself was to somehow be disloyal to Kerry, and that the only loyal thing to do was to take one for the team and repudiate my statement. So I offered to do so....I repudiated my statement, stayed at headquarters doing TV appearances and never again played a meaningful role in the campaign.

So Rubin ended up saying he had made a mistake he hadn't made. (How's that for spin?) And it has haunted him ever since. Now he's peeved that the Obama campaign has dug up this episode to undermine his criticism of Obama. The 2004 Post story reporting his apology is indeed effective political ammo--even if it misrepresented that convoluted chapter. And Rubin has reason to fret that the Obama campaign--and others--will drag it out anytime he's leading a political charge.

"It's fair game to debate a foreign policy adviser's articulation of their candidate's Iraq policy," Rubin says in an email to me. "But it's a cheap shot to send out an attack package based on a four year old controversy just because someone dares debate Iraq policy. This was a type of character assassination intended to stop me from engaging in legitimate debate. And it is doubly outrageous because the attempt to discredit me was based on a four year old charge that isn't even true. What I hope is that the other campaign can just calm down and let the debate continue on Iraq without resorting to these reprehensible campaign tactics that I have always associated with the Republican attack machine."

I'm persuaded that Rubin was unfairly hung out to dry in 2004 by the Kerry campaign. But given his participation in the spitball-hurling Clinton campaign--remember when Hillary Clinton mischaracterized Obama's positions on Iraq?--Rubin may be asking too much if he expects his political foes to recognize the nuances of the 2004 episode. (An Obama aide tells me that the campaign staffers who distributed the 2004 Post article were unaware of the complicated backstory.) After all, the Clinton campaign's attacks on Obama--such as its claim that Obama is not prepared to be commander in chief--have prompted Democrats and commentators to compare the Clinton camp to the Republican attack machine. Unfair attacks do not justify unfair attacks. But when kitchen sinks fly, everyone in the house has to watch out for falling plumbing.

Comments

David,

It is the same cool dignity Senator Obama has continued to show in the face of such obvious slander that will serve him well not only as COC, but as a real leader who just might begin to set this wayward nation back to a more moral path.

His On my faith and My Church

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html

is a dead-on straightforward answer to the fools who judge a man not by his own words and actions, but by those of others.

The desperation of the Clinton campaign is so blatantly obvious. It might work for the uneducated and dis-connected and those just looking for an excuse, but it'll never work on the caring, passionate people who open their eyes to see, for themselves, the future of America.

-T

Posted by: Hajji on 03/14/08 at 6:04 PM Respond

I am an avid Obama supporter AND a Rubin supporter (lifelong pal) ... and even I got a bit lost in the weeds here. Looks like Jamie took one for the team way back when. One may wish he played on a different team (I, for one), but you can't fault him. More generally, at some point the discourse has got to shift away from the blameology emanating liberally from both sides of the rumble. For now, sounds like all's well that ends well ... Thanks for setting the record, um, less crooked?

Posted by: Jordan Tamagni on 03/15/08 at 6:18 AM Respond

If Rubin wanted a real record he wouldn't have ever "taken one" for the team.

Now he wants to complain about the marks and scars he willing wears?

He can't just pretend what was presented as the "truth" back then wasn't a lie he was party to.

Posted by: capt on 03/15/08 at 9:09 AM Respond

The rationalization at the end of this article does not bode well for the democratic process, but I've noted the FACTS. Thank you.

Posted by: Kathy Giannini on 03/15/08 at 1:35 PM Respond

capt:

I agree. "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." Taking one for the team was a deception. When one does something like that, then one must learn not to whine about it later.

I hope Obama can hang in there because he is acutally having to protect against the REPUBLICAN MACHINE that is for the Hillary Clinton Campaign -- REPUBLICAN-Lite DLC, never the less -- REPUBLICAN.

Alan Greenspan says Bill Clinton was the best REPUBLICAN president the United States ever had. Guess what??????? So is Hillary. When asked for verification the 2nd and 3rd time Alan Greenspan reiterated BOTH TIMES that Bill Clinton was the best REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT EVER. There is/was nothing Democrat (LEFT Wing) about Bill Clinton. Bill and Hillary Clinton as Democrats, talk Democrat, but have done/do the best REPUBLICAN job on the LEFT WING's Democratic Party that has ever been done by any other REPUBLICAN. That used to be called a traitor to your party and one would be kicked out of the party; but now, being a traitor to your party is just called being in the RIGHT WING of the LEFT'S Democratic Party, because, since Reagan, the fake DLC REPUBLICAN/Democrats are trying to take over the Democratic Party and convince the populus that there is no LEFT Wing, which means, if the DLC continues unabated, that 70% of the populus, the 70% MAJORITY Common Population will no longer be represented democratically in the government of the United States.

Kathy Giannini:

No FACTS. All "he said-she said" propaganda crap by the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Posted by: MarthaA on 03/16/08 at 9:10 PM Respond

If Jamie Rubin is a teamplayer, which is implied that he is, he should understand by now how the game goes and continue to be loyal to his team past or present; Leaving childish reponses to children and journalistic comments to the professionals. Basically stop being a wimp.

Posted by: Thaha Menkara on 03/16/08 at 9:52 PM Respond

I'm writing from France where French citizens have just tried to right an error in their presidential election of last May by voting into office mayors from the same party as the woman who lost the presidential race. It's somewhat sad. She had done all the groundwork, all the listening and the "auditing" of what France needed ... and she lost. The guy that won can talk a blue streak, can strut his stuff in front of the cameras from dawn till dusk. With the media-munched-over minds of many voters, why should anyone expect them to have gone for the platform rather than the campaign slogan? But after the campaign comes the reality of the regime the winner puts into place. The French voters have woken up and the awakening has been more than rude.
I hope the contributors re-read their own statements before it's too late. Martha A's eloquent "crap" is very typical language for Obama supporters. Another stylistic aspect is to wax on abstractly as Obama often does in his speeches; a good example is Hajji's : "passionate people who open their eyes to see, for themselves, the future of America."
We're not voting for the winner of some reality show. We're voting for the president of the United states. If we get it wrong, it will be much more serious than the election outcome here in France. All the Vietnamese, all the Iraqui people who have died because of Americans voting "passionately". I would suggest trying to be a little dispassionate for a change.
As for the Republican-Democrat distinction, many people think that it is Obama who has economic theoreticians more traditionally linked to Republican policies.
And to repeat my first comment, there are facts in this article which I as a voter appreciate. I'm just a shade too idealistic to accept the closing line which is neither Obama nor Clinton but the journalist himself throwing the towel in. "Dommage"

Posted by: Kathy Giannini on 03/17/08 at 5:15 PM Respond