Who's the guy on Malloy Bashing Clark Supporters?

[Bertrand]

dont be a coward and smear everyone with a couple of posters that are in favour of Clark. To say that all Clark supporters only support him because he's a general is just dumb. I cant stand this reductionist blabbering.

[Cha]

1. Why don't you get on and tell Mike Malloy why you like Clark?

http://www.mikemalloy.com/listen.html

1-800-TALK-Yes !

[Friar]

2. I keep getting a busy signal

but I want to address this issue. Even Keith Olberman, who tends to be non-poltical, trashed Clark the day he announced. It seems like Clark is getting Gore-ed. He's not perfect but he kicks ass as a candidate.

Even Mike seems to dislike Clark.

[Cha]

4. I'm glad he's in! I've been listening to Mike Malloy talk about

Clark..I know more now than I did when I started listening.

Mike's just been telling some history..Mike pretty much tells it like it is.

[Code_Name_D]

9. Keep trying.

You will get in when you snag an open line.

But if you get through, let me clue you into something. You need to think substance on clark.

Suporting him becase he is a Genral, or becase he anouced in Florida is not substance.

[newsguyatl]

3. wow

i just caught the tail end of malloy going off about clark... what did he say?

[Friar]

6. Mike seems to be upset about Kosovo

and Clark's involvement in that war as it was NATO and not the UN involved. That's something to be considered but so is the outcome of that engagement.

[MattNC]

8. what does he expect

Clark had no choice but to be involved.

[Wonk]

7. Shows are archived here

http://www.whiterosesociety.org/

[diplomats]

5. That probably won't change much

until Clark outlines his positions/policies on domestic issues. That's why the debate is important.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. This is what I just sent Mike and consier this a plea

to all

Here are several points

This is going to hurt some of the second tier candidates. There is no doubt in my mind.

Now there are some things to take into account ... the almost knee jerk reaction by the extreme right makes him a candidate they truly fear. (And the extreme left is reacting out of stereotypes regarding the military, more bellow)

His qualifications?

Well, until he starts talking about issues we will not really know but THERE ARE liberals and progressives in the Armed Forces, despite the Republican propaganda ... and this man just may.

Now here are some things many liberals do not realize about the military.

1. As a four star he is NOT a political neophyte, you do not reach that rank if you are not a smooth politician.

2. In spite of all the money we do spend in the armed forces, he still had to manage a budget and was audited constantly ... well except for his days in special forces, maybe.

3. the record for military men in office historically is mixed ... some Generals have done great, some have been disastrous, most are somewhere in the middle. Hence we have to give the man time to explain his position (and if he is the candidate he cannot be worst than Bush)

Now just based on the way a real uniform scares Karl Rove ... their real nightmare will be Dean \ Clark, no particular order. (Given how they have attacked the Doctor too)

What I recommend people do is wait for Clark to start talking on the issues and put the stereotypes to the side ... to a point forget what he did for 30+ years of his life, as what he is facing is classic for anybody who retires from the Armed Forces of the United States and yes the stereotypes are common...

Among them.

Rigid Thinker.

Strike then talk.

Reality is, and this goes against the grain, that most military men do see themselves as tools of peace, and war is truly a last option, since the troops are the ones doing the dying and the killing and the officers are the ones giving the orders. And as an officer you'd better be willing to write letters home, his formative years were truly in the jungles of Nam, as an officer, where I am sure he did plenty of that.

Now as to the email stating that he has no problem with the current gang, I have seen that posted at DU, and I have yet to see it correctly sourced ... but Feih did represent some folks during the Dayton Accords. So giving the benefit of the doubt, Clark did not have a choice, and by the by, he did not negotiate, as that is the job of the civilian leadership, not the military officer, even the one in charge.

now as to what NATO did including the targeting of infrastructure, civilian that is, the only one where intent was even modestly proven was the TV station (unlike the current war in the Gulf where we did plenty on purpose and no forensics investigations after the fact) and no I will not get into the argument with you over genocide, as I have been following the fun and games at the Court in Geneva and yes this was a war that had to be fought and indirectly benefited us (stability in Europe)

So I am just giving the man, (as I have given every other candidate) the time and room to present his agenda, his platform and go onto the debates. Based on what I have seen I like Dean, and I like Kucinich, and I wish Kucinich took lessons from Dean insofar as organizing a campaign. So will give the same benefit of the doubt to the RETIRED General.

Oh and Sharpton gets the overall price for one liners.

Nadin

Honolulu Correspondent, no I am not dead, just busy.

[Cha]

11. I'm glad you're just so "busy"!

Great e-mail! :-)

[newsguyatl]

12. malloy

is HAMMERING clark

[Cascadian]

13. Malloy is starting to raise questions about Clark

General Clark supported the Iraqi invasion. Consider Rumsfeld and Cheney people he could work with????


I am sticking with Dean all the way!



John