Poor Bill Schneider..

[SoCalDem]

He seemed positively flummoxed as to just WHY the election race has been all about Obama, and not the economy or how bad the current administration is doing..

Gee Bill..now why would that be??

Could it be that CNN and all the rest of the media has MADE it that way ?

Could THAT be why??

Could it be that the poll questions are skewed to reflect doubt, rather than support?

Could THAT be it??

Could it possibly be that your chosen "pet guests" are the most rabidly anti-Obama people you could find??

Could THAT be it??

Could it be that you avoided making a federal case out of McCain's BIG blunders, foibles, gaffes & mis-steps??

Could THAT be it??

Could it be that you put Obama under an electron microscope and pointed out every tiny flaw??

Could THAT be it??

Could it be that McCain's family/press barbeques are just too delicious and fun to ever risk criticizing the straight-shooter..the maverick.. the POW??

Could THAT be it??

Could it be that you are just so damned eager to present this (and every election) as "ooh so close", "too close to call", "a horserace", " a squeaker", "a photo-finish", "neck and neck", or "down to the wire", to cover up the slipshod way exit polls are done, and to "explain" why someone who was UP by 10 the day before, loses by 4 on election night (after votes mysteriously "flip"??

Could THAT be it??

Could it be that because Obama's not blond & blue-eyed, you have no way to address "the issue" without exposing your own racism??

Could THAT be it??

[madokie]

1. Yep, thats it.

[Joe Chi Minh]

2. Stop that, this instant! I won't have you say a word against wheedle, wheedle

Father Christmas, the perpetually mystified Neocon propagandist.

But, seriously, well spotted. A telling point.

[BlooInBloo]

5. Heh. Wheedle.

[grassfed]

3. PNAC letter to Clinton signed by Bill Schneider

...Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration’s attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam’s regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,
William Schneider (and) Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Peter W. Rodman, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Robert B. Zoellick

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/16/prominent-neoconservative-site-goes-under/

[Gabi Hayes]

4. wrong schneider.....not that he's not every bit as bad as the OP says

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1351.html