PDA

View Full Version : Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize



Hamilton
October 9th, 2009, 05:53 AM
Barack Obama??

He may be a much better president than the last guy, and hell, he may eventually earn the prize, but it seems like the Nobel committee needs to gain some freakin perspective :confused::confused:

Alonzo-ny
October 9th, 2009, 06:12 AM
Obama wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

The Nobel Peace Prize is announced

US President Barack Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

The Nobel Committee said he was awarded it for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples".

The committee highlighted Mr Obama's efforts to strengthen international bodies and promote nuclear disarmament.

There were a record 205 nominations for this year's prize. Zimbabwe's prime minister and a Chinese dissident had been among the favourites.

The laureate - chosen by a five-member committee - wins a gold medal, a diploma and 10m Swedish kronor ($1.4m).

ANALYSIS

Paul Reynolds
BBC News, London
The award is certainly unexpected and might be regarded as more of an encouragement for intentions than a reward for achievements.

After all, the president has been in office for a little over eight months and he might hope to serve eight years. His ambition for a world free of nuclear weapons is one that is easier to declare than to achieve and a climate control agreement has yet to be reached.

Indeed, the citation indicates that it is President Obama's world view that attracted the Nobel committee - that diplomacy should be founded "on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population".

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the Norwegian committee said in a statement.

"His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

Asked why the prize had been awarded to Mr Obama less than a year after he took office, Nobel committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said: "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve".

"It is a clear signal that we want to advocate the same as he has done," he said.

He specifically mentioned Mr Obama's work to strengthen international institutions and work towards a world free of nuclear arms.

The statement from the committee also said the US president had "created a new climate in international politics".

It proves the Nobel Peace Prize is a farce... Obama has not achieved any results to merit it
Richard, United States

"Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play," it said.

The committee added that the US was now playing a more constructive role in meeting "the great climatic challenges" facing the world, and that democracy and human rights would be strengthened.

Alonzo-ny
October 9th, 2009, 06:13 AM
I really don't think Obama should have won this. All he did was 1. Get elected and 2. Be a better diplomat than Bush. He hasn't done anything extraordinary.

Fabrizio
October 9th, 2009, 06:57 AM
Swedes? Oslo? The faction of the US population that proudly wears ignorance on it's sleeve is going to have a field day with this one. Stay tuned to FoxNews.

londonlawyer
October 9th, 2009, 07:03 AM
This is extraordinary news!

Obama is an unexpected but deserving recipient.

The fact of the matter is that the US is, by a very wide margin, the most influential political entity in the world. Consider, for example, that the North Koreans will not resume the six-party negotiations until they have bilateral talks with the US. Similarly, the US-brokered the Dayton Accord and the Good Friday Peace Agreement resolved conflicts in Europe. For good or for bad (and, I believe, that this status quo largely has been bad due to Republican influence), this is the reality in international politics.

That being said, Obama is the greatest force for good that the world has seen in a very long time, and he has the ability to influence real change.

The Israelis are the biggest obstacle to world peace, and yet, Obama, unlike Bush, is confronting them head on. He knows, for example, that this could impact his re-election, and yet, he ignores this and acts boldly. For example, even if the economy turns around, he could lose Jewish voters in the key swing states of Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan. This is particularly true if, as I believe, Eric Cantor runs as the first credible Jewish candidate for president. Cantor's reactionary Israel policies will galvanize Jewish voters and the lunatic, Evangelicals who are the Republicans base. If Cantor wins those states, he will be president.

I hope that Obama is re-elected and not only oversees the creation of a Palestinian state with pre-1967 borders but also makes great headway into the conflicts that plague the entire African continent. As usual, these conflicts are ignored. However, they pose severe humanitarian implications for the African people and severe security risks for the West. (Afganistan is harldly the only prime breeding ground for Al-Qada -- Sudan, Kenya, Somalia and many other war-torn African countries are petri dishes for terrorism.) Who better than someone of African descent to broker African peace without Africans suspecting Western colonialism as the motivating force?

Obama gave new life to America's force for good. I was often embarrassed to be American (and often still am when I listen to boneheads like John Boehner, et al); however, Obama has restored my faith in this country.

Unlike many politicians, moreover, Obama's intentions also are genuine. For example, Chirac, de Villepin and Scroder took the proper position vis-a-vis the war in Iraq. However, I believe that their views were motivated less by Obama-esque good intentions than by personal desire to counter-act America's global influence and due to their countries' trade relations -- as was the case with the pathetic Gordon Brown who added further tarnish to his Bush-like legacy when he released the Libyan to secure oil for Britain and yet used Scotland as a scapegoat. (King James I must be rolling over in his grave.)

Obama is a uniquely good politician. He is inspirational and deserves this.

P.S.: I hope that he donates the prize money to benefit children in countries impacted by war, such as Gaza, Sudan, etc.

Alonzo-ny
October 9th, 2009, 07:27 AM
Barack Obama and the Nobel peace prize

Even greater expectations
Oct 9th 2009
From Economist.com

Is it premature to give Barack Obama the Nobel peace prize, less than a year into his presidency?

AFP
BARACK OBAMA, who has been America's president for just nine months, has won the 2009 Nobel peace prize. Perhaps the Nordic judges felt it was a suitable consolation after Chicago lost out to Rio de Janeiro in its bid to host the 2016 Olympic games. Or the prizegivers might have felt moved by Mr Obama’s personal story: that a mixed-race man is president says much about the peaceful progress on race relations in America. Instead they emphasised Mr Obama’s aspirations and his commitment to diplomacy, even if, so far, he has achieved little that is concrete.

Most broadly, he has sought to engage with opponents, saying that America would “extend a hand, if you unclench your fist”, for example to those who were earlier dismissed as an “axis of evil”. Somewhat to the discomfort of Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who had bolstered his domestic support by vilifying America as an aggressor, Mr Obama has proposed direct talks about nuclear affairs, removing a precondition that Iran first abandon enrichment of uranium. Mr Obama made withdrawal of American troops from Iraq one of the main pledges of his election campaign and has since overseen a slightly quicker run down of troops than was envisaged by Mr Bush. Towards North Korea, too, Mr Obama has dangled the prospect of bilateral talks and closer engagement.

Regarding Russia Mr Obama has developed a policy of notably warmer ties, dubbed “hitting the reset button”. Relations had become especially frosty towards the end of Mr Bush’s presidency when war broke out between Georgia, an ally of America, and Russia. Since coming to office Mr Obama has also overseen talks aimed at reducing the nuclear arsenals of Russia and America, while speaking of his ultimate wish to “get to zero”—somehow ridding the world of all nuclear weapons. Most substantially (and to the dismay of the Polish and Czech governments), he has scrapped an earlier plan to deploy a missile-defence shield on land in eastern Europe, which had been seen as a provocation by Russia.

Yet Mr Obama’s main achievement is a change of tone in foreign policy. A speech given in Egypt in June, was an eloquent call for a new understanding between America and Islam. It was designed both to assure Muslims, now thought to number 1.6 billion around the world, that America is not set on a crusade. Similarly it was intended to convey to any Americans (and others) who believe in the notion of a “clash of civilisations” that friendly ties between religions is eminently possible.

Similarly, American policy towards small and repressive regimes, ranging from Myanmar to Cuba, has shifted in mood, if not yet substance, by offering the prospect of engagement if governments demonstrate progress towards democracy. Some may also see Mr Obama’s push for more action to tackle climate change as a factor—he is urging Congress to pass a cap-and-trade bill, and has said that his administration would decree new environmental rules if Congress fails to do so. (Al Gore, another Democratic figure, also won the Nobel prize, for his campaigns against climate change.)

Yet critics will have plenty to complain about, too. The prize-giving committee was at pains to emphasise Mr Obama’s “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”. In the citation, the committee argued that: “His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.” But is the award premature? Although the prize may be given in the spirit of encouraging Mr Obama’s government, it might have been better to wait for more solid achievements. With so many good intentions, and so many initiatives scattered around the world (and an immensely busy domestic agenda, including health-care reform and averting economic collapse), Mr Obama appears to be racing around trying everything without yet achieving much.

One might point to Mr Obama’s lauded decision to close the military prison for terrorist subjects in Guantánamo Bay, and his explicit rejection of the use of torture by American spies and interrogators. Both are welcome, but for now Guantánamo Bay remains open. Carrying through on promises is proving far harder than making them. Similarly Mr Obama made progress encouraging Israeli and Palestinian leaders to hold talks about peace earlier this year, but as he is distracted by other concerns, both parties have since drifted away from negotiations. And so far North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Russia—among others—have offered nothing of substance to demonstrate that a policy of engagement will bring more results than Mr Bush’s tough line.

More troubling is Afghanistan. Although the Nobel committee has now rewarded Mr Obama with a title of peacemaker (plus $1.4m or so), he remains a war president. He must shortly decide whether to deploy an additional 40,000 soldiers to fight against Taliban and other insurgents in a conflict that has lasted for eight years. With no obvious means of ending that war, there is a serious possibility that Mr Obama's presidency will become dominated by worsening conditions there.

Mr Obama’s aspirations are to be lauded, but he has several tough years ahead. The Nobel committee evidently wants to encourage him, but it might have been wiser to hold judgment until he has achieved more. In America itself, the decision has already infuriated conservative commentators, ensuring there will be no peace on the home front, at least.

londonlawyer
October 9th, 2009, 07:34 AM
I don't think that this is premature.

More importantly, it strenghtens his negotiating position with the Nazi-esque regime who currently rule Israel. If a great Israeli leader like Rabin were in power, Obama already would have secured a peace deal. However, the reprehensible "Bibi" and his filthy pig foreign minister Liberman are obstacles to peace (and, for that matter, to securing basic human rights for the Palestinians). Hopefully, their ability to resist Obama will diminish now.

Fabrizio
October 9th, 2009, 08:03 AM
The news organizations are highlighting a fact that, if it's true, is going to make America's unruly Right go ballistic...

From MSNBC:

“Humbled” Obama becomes third sitting U.S. president to win but decision stuns observers because he took office less than two weeks before nomination deadline."

Two weeks?

Ninjahedge
October 9th, 2009, 08:57 AM
So you have to do something before the nomination to win it?

Or can you win (or lose) on the merits of the actions you take AFTER nomination?

What if Arafat had blown up a shopping mall before he won his? You think the committee would have just looked at that as a "technicality" and still awarded him the prize?

The nomination may have been premature, but I think he has done enough to see his direction and what he has done as well as what he plans to do.

Do I think that he does not deserve the prize? No. I do, however, think that someone else may have been more deserving.

I HOPE he has the sense to donate that prize money to some worthy charity. Many that win this prize may not be as affluent or well...um....endowed (financially!) as our current President and have every right to keep the money, but I believe that he should strengthen his own case for his magnanimity (is that a word?) if he were to forgo the cash to a worthier recipient......

ablarc
October 9th, 2009, 09:05 AM
Go, Obama !

lofter1
October 9th, 2009, 09:07 AM
A huge surprise, but not entirely without precedent (see, as other somewhat similar examples (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/world/10nobel.html?ref=global-home), West German Chancellor Willy Brandt in 1971 and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990).

Perhaps this award will cause Mr. Obama to dig deeper and get him back on track in some areas where he has been unduly and poorly influenced.

It's a lot to live up to when the award is for the promise of what may come in the future.

lofter1
October 9th, 2009, 09:22 AM
From Fox News online (where the commenters (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/09/president-barack-obama-wins-nobel-peace-prize/comments/) are, indeed, going full bore ballistic):

Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

Nobel observers were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in the Obama presidency,
which began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline.

Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/09/president-barack-obama-wins-nobel-peace-prize/)
October 9, 2010

OSLO -- President Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision designed to encourage his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.

Nobel observers were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in the Obama presidency, which began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline.

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," said Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Nobel Committee.

Still, the U.S. remains at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. Congress has yet to pass a law reducing carbon emissions and there has been little significant reduction in global nuclear stockpiles since Obama took office ...

"So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far. He is still at an early stage. He is only beginning to act," said former Polish President Lech Walesa, a 1983 Nobel Peace laureate.

"This is probably an encouragement for him to act. Let's see if he perseveres. Let's give him time to act," Walesa said.

The award appeared to be a slap at President George W. Bush from a committee that harshly criticized Obama's predecessor for his largely unilateral military action in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks. The Nobel committee praised Obama's creation of "a new climate in international politics" and said he had returned multilateral diplomacy and institutions like the U.N. to the center of the world stage.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who won the prize in 1984, said Obama's award shows great things are expected from him in coming years.

"It's an award coming near the beginning of the first term of office of a relatively young president that anticipates an even greater contribution towards making our world a safer place for all," Tutu said. "It is an award that speaks to the promise of President Obama's message of hope."

Until seconds before the award, speculation had focused on a wide variety of candidates besides Obama: Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, a Colombian senator, a Chinese dissident and an Afghan woman's rights activist, among others. The Nobel committee received a record 205 nominations for this year's prize, though it was not immediately apparent who nominated Obama.

"The exciting and important thing about this prize is that it's given to someone ... who has the power to contribute to peace," Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg said.

Obama is the third sitting U.S. president to win the award: President Theodore Roosevelt won in 1906 and President Woodrow Wilson was awarded the prize in 1919.

The Nobel committee chairman said after awarding the 2002 prize to former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, for his mediation in international conflicts, that it should be seen as a "kick in the leg" to the Bush administration's hard line in the buildup to the Iraq war.

Five years later, the committee honored Bush's adversary in the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore, for his campaign to raise awareness about global warming.

Obama was to meet with his top advisers on the Afghan war on Friday to consider a request by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, to send as many as 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan as the U.S war there enters its ninth year.

Obama ordered 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan earlier this year and has continued the use of unmanned drones for attacks on militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a strategy devised by the Bush administration. The attacks often kill or injure civilians living in the area.

In July talks in Moscow, Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed that their negotiators would work out a new limit on delivery vehicles for nuclear warheads of between 500 and 1,100. They also agreed that warhead limits would be reduced from the current range of 1,700-2,200 to as low as 1,500. The United States now as about 2,200 such warheads, compared to about 2,800 for the Russians.

But there has been no word on whether either side has started to act on the reductions.

Former Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, said Obama has already provided outstanding leadership in the effort to prevent nuclear proliferation.

"In less than a year in office, he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we live in and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself," ElBaradei said. "He has shown an unshakeable commitment to diplomacy, mutual respect and dialogue as the best means of resolving conflicts."

Obama also has attempted to restart stalled talks between the Israelis and Palestinians, but just a day after Obama hosted the Israeli and Palestinian leaders in New York, Israeli officials boasted that they had fended off U.S. pressure to halt settlement construction. Moderate Palestinians said they felt undermined by Obama's failure to back up his demand for a freeze.

Nominators for the prize include former laureates; current and former members of the committee and their staff; members of national governments and legislatures; university professors of law, theology, social sciences, history and philosophy; leaders of peace research and foreign affairs institutes; and members of international courts of law.

The Nelson Mandela Foundation welcomed the award on behalf of its founder Nelson Mandela, who shared the 1993 Peace Prize with then-South African President F.W. DeKlerk for their efforts at ending years of apartheid and laying the groundwork for a democratic country.

"We trust that this award will strengthen his commitment, as the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, to continue promoting peace and the eradication of poverty," the foundation said.

In his 1895 will, Alfred Nobel stipulated that the peace prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses."

Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which are awarded by Swedish institutions, he said the peace prize should be given out by a five-member committee elected by the Norwegian Parliament. Sweden and Norway were united under the same crown at the time of Nobel's death.

The committee has taken a wide interpretation of Nobel's guidelines, expanding the prize beyond peace mediation to include efforts to combat poverty, disease and climate change.

© 2008 FOX News Network, LLC

lofter1
October 9th, 2009, 09:32 AM
One eye-opening comment from a Fox reader:


It is a sad day, almost as bad as 9/11. Obama winning the nobel peace prize would be a joke if it wasn't so tragic. I cryed on 9/11 and am crying today. The nobel peace prize means nothing. The committee has to be on drugs or paid alot of money. Obama has only traveled abroard and put down America at every chance he gets? Obama has done nothing but promote the Muslims. Are we so lost that this happens. I am already stressed out and now this. It is a sad day for America. God help us.

MidtownGuy
October 9th, 2009, 09:35 AM
^I'm sorry but that person needs to have their head smashed against a wall in a desperate attempt to resuscitate the brain.
---

Congratulations Obama.

Ninjahedge
October 9th, 2009, 09:54 AM
Has anyone mentioned Hitler yet?


I mean, anyone who knows ANYTHING would have done Hitler, Stalin AND 9/11 in the same post to comment on this NPP awarding to thet Socialistic Libertarian Liberal Nazi.


wait a sec......:confused:

Fabrizio
October 9th, 2009, 10:06 AM
I'm watching Joe Scarborough at the moment. He says:

"I'm surprised they didn't give it to him last year!"

ZippyTheChimp
October 9th, 2009, 10:26 AM
Should Obama Turn Down
the Nobel Peace Prize?

By Max Fisher on October 09, 2009 8:29am

President Obama, nine months into his presidency, has won the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel committee in Sweden says it awarded it to Obama "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

The award comes as a shock; past recipients, such as Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama, have often had long careers of dramatic international involvement. Obama's award, then, is seen as more for his promise of hope and change than a specific record of accomplishments.

Reaction in the U.S. has been swift and sharp, with many liberals celebratory and conservatives dour. But there exists a small but vocal -- and bipartisan -- contingent saying that Obama should turn down the Nobel Peace Prize.

Turn The Nobel Down
Some of the most vocal calls for Obama to refuse to prize are coming from the left, as Marc Ambinder points out when he predicts that this will become the "conventional wisdom" for Democrats. The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg: "It might be smart for Obama to turn this prize down, at least until he achieves peace somewhere. Or trade for Olympics." Jon Henke: "So far, the Right, Left and Media all seem to agree that the Nobel Peace Prize committee just beclowned itself."

The Liberal Case for Declining
The American Prospect's Adam Serwer leads. "Normally you do have to do something to win this prize. Obama is not in the same league as mandela or rabin. No joke obama should turn the nobel peace prize down until he's finished with his two wars. To be clear, this is embarrassing for the committee, not the recipient. I'm all for poking fun at the anger over this, but there are lots of mommies and daddies in [Afghanistan]/Iraq who would disagree [with] Nobel [committee]. Because no one should have to ask why you won the Nobel peace prize."

The Conservative Case for Declining
Slate Mickey Kaus leads. "Turn it down! Politely decline. Say he's honored but he hasn't had the time yet to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. Result: He gets at least the same amount of glory--and helps solve his narcissism problem and his Fred Armisen ('What's he done?') problem, demonstrating that he's uncomfortable with his reputation as a man overcelebrated for his potential long before he's started to realize it" he writes. "But the possibility for a Nobel backlash seems non-farfetched.

Not The First Sitting President, But So Early?
Joe Weisenthal notes that other U.S. presidents have won in office. "That a sitting US President would win the prize isn't totally unprecedented. Both Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were also winners," he writes. "With less than a year in office, and relatively few accomplishments to speak of (yet) this prize may prove to be pretty awkward for the President, as he's constantly had to fight the image of all-hype-little-substance."

The 'Screw Bush' Award
Allahpundit wonders whether the Nobel committee is playing politics. "This makes three times, incidentally, in just seven years that the committee's turned the Peace Prize into a 'f*** Bush' award by bestowing it on a liberal American Democrat. The Goracle got it in 2007 and Carter received it in 2002, making today's announcement yet one more reason to consider The One his presidential heir," he writes. "Exit question: There was no one more deserving? Morgan Tsvangirai, Mugabe's nemesis in Zimbabwe? Iranian protesters? Hello?"

Arabs Not So Thrilled
Foreign Policy's Marc Lynch anecdotally reports the Arab reaction. "Based on conversations in Amman there's not going to be much Arab enthusiasm for Obama peace prize," he tweets. "Jordanians are very, very pessimistic about peace process in case you were wondering."

Atlantic Monthly reader comments (http://theatlanticwire.disqus.com/should_obama_turn_down_the_nobel_peace_prize_the_a tlantic_wire/)

Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group.

Fabrizio
October 9th, 2009, 10:46 AM
^ It would be an extremely classy move and also get Obama off the hook.

I like Obama, I'm glad he's Pres, I'm glad he won the Nobel (mostly because it gives the finger to the Rethuglicans)... but no matter how many good intentions IMHO in order to be president of the United States, one must be a part of the bulldozer that is the American war and money machine. Defacto. I think the era of a Theodore Roosevelt or a Woodrow Wilson manning the Presidency are long gone.

Am I being to cynical to think that most of those good intentions will come to very little?

---

Alonzo-ny
October 9th, 2009, 11:27 AM
I would have a great respect for Obama if he turned it down. He does need time to achieve something. I also don't think it makes sense to have a Peace Prize when you may have to kill many people in two wars. He won't have problems getting the prize later if he can walk the walk.

OmegaNYC
October 9th, 2009, 01:29 PM
Congrats, to the President! Though, I personally feel it is a bit too early for the award, it still great to know that diplomacy, and not cowboy unilateralism, is the way to reach out to the world. Obama, has a lot to live up to. I have hop he will get the job done.

OmegaNYC
October 9th, 2009, 01:39 PM
It's funny, I have a friend who says that Obama hasn't done "anything" to be awarded the Nobel, I counter that Obama, is working on reaching out to the Muslim world, reducing nuclear arms, and is strenghting international diplomacy. Her counter? It is because he's America's first black President. ~_~

OmegaNYC
October 9th, 2009, 02:06 PM
President Barack Obama Nobel Peace Prize win mocks award; GOP has ammunition on Iran, Afghanistan

By Josh Greenman (http://www.nydailynews.com/authors/Josh%20Greenman)
DAILY NEWS EDITORIAL COLUMNIST
Updated Friday, October 9th 2009, 1:18 PM

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/10/10/alg_barack_obama_side_view.jpg Pool
President Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize win will give the GOP critics room to maneuver.






In one fell swoop, the Nobel Prize (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Nobel+Prizes) jury just made a mockery of the world's most revered honor and handed Barack Obama (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Barack+Obama)'s opponents a great talking point. They wounded two doves with one stone.
In an ideal world, Obama would have politely turned down the award.
Instead, he accepted it with humility and class and grace, and on behalf of "the young woman who marches silently in the streets on behalf of her right to be heard, even in the face of beatings and bullets" and other unheralded heroes.

He even explicitly said, "I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize."
Right. Maybe someday he'll have earned it, but not yet.
The ironies are thick. The folks in Oslo (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Oslo) think they're bucking up a President who believes in the international community to advance a vision they share.

They're wrong. They just gave Obama's domestic opponents - who have been hammering away at what they view as Obama's weak-kneed foreign policy, at his flying all over the planet to curry favor while he (in their analysis) neglects the economy and capitulates on basic American national security interests - license to keep calling him President of the World.

If they realized what headaches the award would cause him domestically, if they had realized how perfectly the award plays into the anti-Obama narrative being crafted by his most strident opponents, they might have thought twice.

And does anyone truly believe that the Nobel Laureate will instantly have more credibility at the table with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Mahmoud+Ahmadinejad), Kim Jong Il (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Kim+Jong-il) or the representatives of Hamas (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Hamas)?
It's not Obama's fault he got this honor. He is actually trying to make the world a better place.

But the jury is still out on whether any of his methods will succeed. In fact, the jury hasn't even sat down yet.
Iran (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Iran) is still pursuing a nuclear weapon. The war in Afghanistan (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Afghanistan) (which George W. Bush (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/George+W.+Bush) began) is getting worse. The Iraq (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Iraq) war (which Bush also began) isn't over. China (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/China) is rising ominously in influence. North Korea (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/North+Korea) keeps rattling the nuclear saber. Venezuela (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Venezuela) is making mischief, too. And climate change is still a big global threat. And in all of these areas, Obama's promise is to bring the international community together. That's just a means, not an end.

The timing is especially ridiculous given the fact that nominations had to be received early this year, just days into his presidency, when Obama had no notches at all on his brand new belt.
Before this big mistake, the Nobel Prize for Peace had already fallen far in the estimation of much of America (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/United+States). It was already seen, fairly or unfairly, as captive to the political left and a handful of crazy causes.
The carping got louder when Al Gore (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Al+Gore) shared the prize, even though that was based on a real body of important work.

Now the Prize - which once meant something important - is officially a late-night joke. And like it or not, Obama is part of the punchline. This is not the 3 a.m. phone call Obama and Hillary Clinton (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Hillary+Clinton) were arguing about in last year's campaign, but it will help to shape his public image just as much.

So far, Obama's dealt with the news well. His demeanor was modest. His words were meaningful and sincere.
Now comes the final test. After his remarks this morning, a journalist shouted the question: what will you do with the money? It's some $1.4 million.

I'm sure he has no intention of pocketing it. So here's a suggestion: split it among next five runners-up and see what real seeds of peace get planted. Or maybe start an endowment to create a new peace prize that will honor people who convert bold and progressive rhetoric into reality.

ZippyTheChimp
October 9th, 2009, 03:44 PM
In one fell swoop, the Nobel Prize (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Nobel+Prizes) jury just made a mockery of the world's most revered honor

Let's not go overboard. They awarded one to Henry Kissinger in 1973.

Kris
October 9th, 2009, 07:44 PM
October 10, 2009
Picking the Most Visible of 205 Names
By WALTER GIBBS

OSLO — The Norwegian Nobel Committee spent seven months winnowing the résumés of dissident monks, human rights advocates, field surgeons and other nominees — 205 names in all, most of them obscure — before deciding to give the Nobel Peace Prize to the most famous man on the planet, Barack Obama.

“The question we have to ask,” Thorbjorn Jagland, the committee’s new chairman, said after the prize was announced on Friday, “is, ‘Who has done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world?’ And who has done more than Barack Obama?”

While in recent decades the selection process has produced many winners better known for their suffering or their environmental zeal than for peacemaking, Mr. Jagland, a former Norwegian prime minister, said he intended to incorporate a more practical approach.

“It’s important for the committee to recognize people who are struggling and idealistic,” Mr. Jagland said in an interview, “but we cannot do that every year. We must from time to time go into the realm of realpolitik. It is always a mix of idealism and realpolitik that can change the world.”

Mr. Jagland, 58, leaned back in his chair in the committee room, surrounded by photographs of Peace Prize winners dating to 1901. Three previous American presidents look out from the wall: Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter. But the 2009 award to Mr. Obama, in his freshman year as president and still directing two wars, could be the biggest of them all.

While some leaders and commentators around the world lauded the selection, others said Mr. Obama had not yet earned it. Should his presidency descend into a military quagmire, as Lyndon B. Johnson’s did during the Vietnam War, the 2009 award could prove an embarrassment.

Several prominent Nobel observers in Oslo said the Nobel committee had put the integrity of the award at stake. But Mr. Jagland seemed to savor the risk. He said no one could deny that “the international climate” had suddenly improved, and that Mr. Obama was the main reason.

Of the president’s future, he said: “There is great potential. But it depends on how the other political leaders respond. If they respond negatively, one might have to say he failed. But at least we want to embrace the message that he stands for.”

He likened this year’s award to the one in 1971, which recognized Willy Brandt, then the chancellor of West Germany, and his “Ostpolitik” policy of reconciliation with Communist Eastern Europe.

“Brandt hadn’t achieved much when he got the prize, but a process had started that ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall,” Mr. Jagland said. “The same thing is true of the prize to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990, for launching perestroika. One can say that Barack Obama is trying to change the world, just as those two personalities changed Europe.”

Mr. Jagland, who was elected Sept. 29 to be secretary general of the Council of Europe, represents the Labor Party, but the five-member Nobel committee is more than the collection of Scandinavian socialists that its critics in the United States sometimes imagine. Its members are chosen by the Norwegian Parliament to roughly reflect the party makeup of that body. The current committee includes two members from the Labor Party, one from the Socialist Left Party, one from the Conservatives and one from the far-right Progress Party. Mr. Jagland said all five members backed this year’s choice.

Geir Lundestad, who as executive director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute has handled the committee’s administrative affairs since 1990, said the committee met six or seven times this year, starting several weeks after the nomination deadline of Feb. 1. It did not pick a winner until Monday. He said Oslo faced a major challenge to get ready for what will likely be among the largest civic events in Norwegian history: the award ceremony Dec. 10 at which Mr. Obama will be expected to deliver a speech.

Responding to the analysts who expressed concern for the authority of the prize, given Obama’s lack of accomplishment so far, Dr. Lundestad said, “We are very optimistic that this will turn out to be a success and a highlight in our history.”

Mr. Jagland was asked if the committee feared being labeled naïve for accepting a young politician’s promises at face value. He shrugged and said, “Well, so?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/world/10oslo.html

BrooklynRider
October 10th, 2009, 12:53 AM
He gets to add this prize to the long list of distinctions on his resume. It will help use up all the blank space where accomplishments ought to be.

Bananahead
October 25th, 2009, 09:10 PM
:confused:When I first heard about Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize my response was "What For?" Now my response is "You can win the peace prize for good intentioned talk?" Because that's all he's done thus far is, talk.
I always thought this award stood for something. I always saw the winners as dedicated heroes who spent the better half of their lives in pursuit of something grand!!!!!! Think of MARTTI AHTISAARI of Finland or WANGARI MAATHAI of Africa or THE 14TH DALAI LAMA (TENZIN GYATSO) of Tibet or MOTHER TERESA or even the first Nobel peace prize winners FRÉDÉRIC PASSY and JEAN HENRI DUNANT. These people stood/stand for something greater than themselves and they have been working their A**es off to achieve it!!!
Obama isn’t' old enough and hasn’t' been working toward his "Goal" long enough to even be considered for this most prestigious award!!!! If he had any dignity at all he would have politely turned it down with grace and humility!!!! I am disgusted!!!!
This is an outrage and a slap in the face to the people who truly deserve this award!! The people who dedicate their existence for something and never expect anything in return!!
Now I’m not saying Obama will never deserve this award. I’m not saying that! What I am saying is he doesn’t deserve it now!!!!!!!!! He hasn’t been doing whatever they say he’s been doing long enough. I shake my head at this travesty and wonder where this world is heading!! Didn’t your grandfather always say you have to earn something to get it? Well Obama has NOT earned the Nobel peace prize yet!!!

lofter1
October 25th, 2009, 11:21 PM
It is the height of rudeness to decline a gift, no matter whether one believes that one is unworthy of what the giver is offering.

Many Nobel winners have been awarded the Prize for the INTENTION of their actions. In the past the Nobel Committee has seen fit to present the Prize in situations where they believe that it is often equally worthy to ENCOURAGE the good acts and deeds of an individual as to award it to those who have fully accomplished good actions.

Anybody want to bet that first time poster Bananahead wasn't too much of an Obama fan before the Prize was awarded?

Ninjahedge
October 26th, 2009, 09:17 AM
never post political on your first post.

No matter what side you are on, you will leave a bad impression on someone and hurt your chances of befriending them later.

ZippyTheChimp
October 26th, 2009, 10:34 AM
Or at least a few less !

Just a Texas boy with a drive-by post.

Wonder how he knew what my grandfather said to me.

lofter1
October 26th, 2009, 10:39 AM
Texas -- ahhh -- land of the free ...

Why don't we let that state secede? No doubt they'd all do just fine without any of that nasty federal money.

Perhaps they could take Oklahoma with them.

Ninjahedge
October 26th, 2009, 11:12 AM
Or at least a few less !

Just a Texas boy with a drive-by post.

Wonder how he knew what my grandfather said to me.

I stopped reading when he started increasing his font size.

TREPYE
October 26th, 2009, 11:38 AM
Didn’t your grandfather always say you have to earn something to get it? Well Obama has NOT earned the Nobel peace prize yet!!!



Wonder how he knew what my grandfather said to me.

Yeaa! How did he know it wasn't my dad who told me that??

Ninjahedge
May 11th, 2011, 08:44 AM
Zip I am removing the comment to the banned spammer.

ZippyTheChimp
May 11th, 2011, 09:28 AM
^
It was spam. Noah Mads made 15 "normal" posts before he started including ad links. All his posts removed.

stache
May 12th, 2011, 02:28 AM
A stealth spammer.