Lieberman thinks Obama-Marx smear is a ‘good question’

April 15, 2008

It’s almost as if Joe Lieberman wants to sound like Zell Miller.

Yesterday, Bill Kristol compared Barack Obama’s “bitter” remarks from last week to Karl Marx’s famous maxim about religion being the “opiate of the people.” Hours after Kristol’s piece hit newsstands, Lieberman appeared on the “Brian and the Judge” radio show, and was asked by Fox News personality Judge Andrew Napolitano about Kristol’s comparison.

NAPOLITANO: Hey Sen. Lieberman, you know Barack Obama, is he a Marxist as Bill Kristol says might be the case in today’s New York Times? Is he an elitist like your colleague Hillary Clinton says he is?

LIEBERMAN: Well, you know, I must say that’s a good question. I know him now for a little more than three years since he came into the Senate and he’s obviously very smart and he’s a good guy. I will tell ya that during this campaign, I’ve learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn’t … I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist, but he’s got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America.

Really? It’s a “good question” to ask if Obama is a Marxist? This is where Lieberman’s ideological journey to the right has taken him?

As Josh Marshall put it, “There must be something wrong with me that I can still be surprised at how low Joe Lieberman (Joe-CT) can sink.”

Aside from the “good question” nonsense, Lieberman’s argument about Obama having issue positions that are “far to the left” of “mainstream America” was also striking.

Sullivan noted, “I’m curious as to what those positions might be. I presume an opposition to permanent occupation of Iraq is not now some function of Marxism. Tax rates at the Clinton levels? Cap-and-trade? What actually does Lieberman mean by this?”

I’m wondering the same thing. As far as I can tell, Obama, like Hillary Clinton, is right smack in the middle of mainstream American political thought, especially when it comes to foreign policy. On domestic issues, Lieberman still presumably claims to agree with Obama on some of the major hot-button policies. So where’s the evidence of extremism?

Maybe some enterprising young Hill reporter can follow up with Lieberman on this. On which issues is Obama “far to the left” of “mainstream America” — and on which issues is Lieberman far to the right of mainstream America?

Sullivan added another good point for reporters’ assignment desk: “Back in 2006, Joe Lieberman couldn’t get enough of Barack Obama, and Obama stoutly defended Lieberman from parts of the anti-war left. Lieberman begged Obama to come to Connecticut to speak on his behalf. It would be a good question for the press to ask Lieberman after his description of Obama as ‘far-left’ today. In what way is Obama ‘far left’ now in a way he wasn’t ‘far left’ then?”

When we get a couple more senators on our side, can we finally tar-and-feather this chickenshit asshole?

  • He really is revolting. If Reid doesn’t strip him of his committees after we boost our majority, there better be a huge outcry at senators’ willingness to get each others’ backs against the clear benefit of the party and country.

  • Is Joe LIEberman so shallow that he believes whatever the last person he talked to said.

    There was an English king like that, before the Norman Conquest. He is not well regarded in History.

    And neither will Joe be.

  • Ever watch the Jimmy Stewart movie, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington? This is that movie come to life, where the status quo turns out in force against the good-guy rookie.

    Now if Lieberman would only go into his office, put a pistol to his head, and pull the trigger….

  • So we now learn from the various groups of wingnuts that: Obama is a muslim, and a follower of a crazy christian minister for 20 years and a godless athetist Marxist…..all at the same time!

    Gotta hand it to the wingnuts. Good job JoeMentum.

  • There’s an old English song which everyone interested in politics should read or hear or sing at least once: “The Vicar of Bray”. A midi file of the melody is here. Lyrics, annotated to explain some of the archaic words and concepts, are here.

    The song describes Bush III (McCain) and Lieberman to a tee.

  • Where is Preston Brooks when you need him?

    That’s an unfair comparison — Sumner didn’t deserve his caning.

  • Is he an elitist like your colleague Hillary Clinton says he is?
    –Rightwing nutcase

    Hmmm …

    elite, n. — the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons; representing the most choice or select; best

    Only in the clinically fuqing stupid world of the GOP is being “elite” considered a bad thing.

    And only the clinically fuqing stupid world of the GOP can be so damned clueless about what Marx actually wrote.

  • I can’t believe Hillary still in race…those two Bill and Hill, people mock them Worldwide. They are desparate, old and angry…but ‘Annie Oakley’, has shown her strength, unfortunately it’s not pretty…., I only hope this woman stop’s the b.s. soon. People are braindrained from her / his nonsense. If they only knew what foreign countries really think of them, with contempt and ‘bitterness’.

  • I’m not surprised Josh Marshall is surprised — TPM supported Lieberman in 2006, or at least didn’t grasp the fundamental importance of the race. He’ll probably still defend his stance if you ask him. Dumbfuck.

  • Two unconnected obervations:

    Hillary and Bill, the Scylla and Carybdis through which Obama-Odysseus will eventually sail, after being slightly damaged by Hillary-Scylla.

    How is it possible to be simultaneously an elitist (according to Hillary) and a Marxist (Kristol)? And why is it so easy for Hillary Gollum Clinton and William Kristol to show up on the same side of the same sentence?

  • Backing Lieberman in 2006 was one of the major reasons I wasn’t an Obama support before this year. Yes he says many of the right things, but we had a legitimate progressive candidate in a very close race and Obama chose to support the non-Democrat. Hopefully he is learning a lesson now about trust Washington-style since Lieberman clearly doesn’t feel any gratitude to Obama and Clinton for helping him hang on to his seat.

  • Shalimar, yes, I was very disappointed in Obama supporting Lieberman in the primary, but didn’t he back Lamont in the general, or am I remembering that wrong?

    What did Clinton do? I think she stayed out of the primary and supported Lamont in the general, right? I can’t recall.

    As for learning lessons, I think we can safely assume that Obama’s way ahead of Clinton in that department. He rarely if ever makes the same mistake twice, while Clinton appears to be stuck on a Groundhog Day loop.

  • That Senator Scumbag is even someone anyone pays attention to, I blame on Al Gore. Nationally, this idiot was “Senator Who?” before Gore decided to run with the first Jew to be nominated as VP – it was about as big a pander as Mondale having an incompetent like Geraldine Ferraro for VP.

    Oh well, even Al Gore can make a few mistakes. This was a Big One.

  • I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist, but he’s got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America. — Joe Lie

    All old Joe is doing is giving Obama some street cred with us real lefties, who’ve had serious reservations about Obama’s centrist positions 🙂

  • What I want to know is whether or not there are ratings other than that stupid National Journal poll that might offer a different view of Obama. NJ has no transparency regarding their method, as far as I know (and no, that wasn’t a Clintonian “as far as I know”).

  • I bet Obama is glad he endorsed Lieberman instead of the Democratic Candidate for the Senate.

  • So far, Obama has been vilified as a Muslim because his middle name is Hussein; vilified because he stayed faithful to Trinity UCC because a Marine Veteran Pastor dared to call the country for which he went into Harm’s Way, to accountability for keeping the black community in bondage long after the Civil War supposedly gave them equal status; for dropping the atomic bomb and incinerating 150,000 Japanese innocent civilians after bragging how in Europe we had bombed only strategic targets, iminimizing civilian losses and preserving historic buildings and the culture of Germany – but we disregarded the fact that the culture of Japan (Oriental) is thousands of years older than the German (white) nation.
    Wright knew the story of the Dulles brothers in 1952, sending Kermit Washington to Iran to undermine and discredit Mossadegh who was establishing a secular Muslim Democracy. Truman and Dean Acheson refused to do Winston Churchill’s bidding to destroy Mossadegh, whom Truman respected. But the Republican Roosevelt was spectacularly successful. Mossadegh was forced from office as Prime Minister and sentenced to house arrest so Britain could go on economically raping Iran whose oil rights Britain had obtained 30 years earlier by bribing that era’s Shah. When hostages were taken in Carter’s administration, when one of the hostages asked “Why?”, the answer came “Because 25 years ago you prevented Mossadegh establishing a Democracy in iran. You robbed us of our Freedom.” So hatred of America had been festering in Iran for 25 years, and it has continued to fester. The result was Al quida and all of the militant Muslim hatred of American. So when Rev Wright said after 9/11, “America’s chickens are coming home to roost”, he was simply stating the truth!

  • I’m angry because the Media is giving Clinton all that free TV coverage: 3 or 4 times on Saturday Night Live, 3 times on Jon Stewart Daily Show, at least twice on Colbert Report, and now on the eve of the Presidential Primary in Pa, for the 3rd time on Larry King Live. This in addition to having her own hatchetman on ABC, former Clinton staffer Stephanopoulis, to pass along Fox News Hanity suggestion to pillory Obama because he served on a board with U of Chicago Prof who 40 years ago when Obama was 8 years old was a Weatherman protestor to Vietnam. Did they not think it would have been equally as relevant to attack Hillary because Bill pardoned two other members of the same Weatherman Protest organization? And then ABC on Sunday morning further attacked Obama for his being unhappy for extraneous issues for half of the so-called Debate between Obama and Clinton, and didn’t air his reasoned and quiet response even to the ridiculous question put to him.
    Any notion that the Press has been unfair to Hillary for calling attention to her flat lying to the American people, is ridiculous. Then both Bill and Hillary trying to suggest she had done so just once when she was tired, when in fact she had done so 4 times at various times of the day. When you get that tired just campaigning, how could you ever answer that 3 a.m. phone call? As 1 of 5 brothers who served in WWII, I know that you don’t forget being under sniper fire, which with all her vaunted experience, she never was, NEVER!
    During the past week, it is as though the Press is trying to make up for any perceived bias earlier, when actually there was none. In fact, much of the anti-Obama stories were issues made up by the Press. When you examine Rev. Wright’s statements taken out of context, he was simply fulfilling the Prophet’s long-established rightful role of speaking Truth to Power. So-called Christian’s need to be reminded that Jesus was not crucified for saying “Behold, the lilies of the field, how they grow”, but for speaking Truth to the Powers of His age!

  • Now that Mr. Obama is your presumptive candidate to become President of the United States, you bet his Marxist values being brought into the mix and other information being reported should be investigated thoroughly by the voters. My huge concern is how many Liberals/Progressives/Democrats are no way interested in (actively avoiding) learning as much as they can about Mr. Obama, their candidate. Being a young, talented orator is not all that is needed to fill this powerfully important and most demanding job. His Marxist leanings will hurt him. Notice that Hugo Chavez endorses him.
    As a former Democrat, I now can clearly see an odd media standard where nothing gets by hitting conservatives hard when and wherever possible. The pass Mr. Obama enjoys by the mainstream media is so obvious by the omissions and softball questions to and about him.
    Rather than answer direct questions, watch carefully how most Progressive’s responses naturally avoid pointed questions. How they rarely criticize liberal ideas and issues or Mr. Obama’s limited Senate term, his speeches, statements, actions (church, personal finances and home purchase) or his questionable close circle of influential friends and associates, pastors etc.
    The natural, reflexive, standard deflection, is to answer by saying something like: “McCain had so and so endorse him.” and Bush did, said etc. – “I know you are but what am I?”
    Thanks in advance for being polite and civil in your comments…

  • Most referencing Obama’s Marxist leanings are citing the liberation theology and the redistributionist agenda of taxation. All left leaning love the second half of Marx’s “to each according to his need” while conveniently short shrifting the first half “from each according his ability”. If everyone was held accountable for contributing to society to his full potential, uncompromised by addictions, academic underachievement, financial/social/personal irresponsibility then the burden of the second half would be miniscule.

  • Didn’t Obama study Marxism in college by his own admission? Aren’t his promises to re appropriate funds from “the wealthy” to “the poor” pure Marxism?

    • Comments are closed.