home

Turn It Down

For reasons that are unfathomable, President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize:

President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday. [. . .] [T]he Nobel Committee announced in Oslo that it has awarded the annual prize to the president “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” The award cited in particular Mr. Obama’s effort to reduce the world’s nuclear arsenal.

Just because the Nobel Committee wants to make fools of themselves, Obama should not have to play along. He should turn it down.

Speaking for me only

< Feingold: "We're Not The Prosecutor's Committee" | Friday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    When I read the headline this (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by vml68 on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 07:37:45 AM EST
    morning, my first reaction was "You've got to be f*cking kidding me!"
    My next was to check TL to see what the rest of you thought...:-)

    You think perhaps that was also the (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:03:10 AM EST
    reaction of the winner?

    It seems impossible for me to think a sane person could accept such an award knowing full well they did absolutely nothing to earn it.


    Parent

    I would be embarrassed if I were Obama (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by kempis on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:04:32 AM EST
    ...and maybe he is.

    Parent
    Of course he is (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:07:24 AM EST
    This is a sad farce.

    Parent
    Put some numbers on the board first. (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by dutchfox on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:20:23 AM EST
    TR had to at least end the Russo-Japanese War. Carter had to bang nails into poor people's outhouses and meddle in foreign policy before he got his.

    The Nobel Committee's recommendations have to be in by the first of February. Obama was inaugurated on January 20! Now, if he refused, that would be cool. But he won't.

    Parent

    Well... (5.00 / 9) (#65)
    by lambert on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:30:43 AM EST
    ... I can think of plenty of other things that I'd be embarrassed to have done that haven't fazed Obama a bit. So I doubt very much he's embarrassed.

    Parent
    Obama? Embarrassed? (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by prittfumes on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:04:20 AM EST
    You're kiddin' me.

    Parent
    You know, BTD, you're channelling (none / 0) (#61)
    by scribe on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:30:10 AM EST
    Mickey Kaus.

    Seriously.

    Parent

    A lot of people think this (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:36:27 AM EST
    This is a farce.

    Parent
    Farce or not, it might give him some leverage (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by magster on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:32:35 AM EST
    in the UN with Iran, Israeli/Palestinian conflict, etc.  I say accept it and use it.

    Parent
    He doesn't need a leverage (5.00 / 9) (#192)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 10:16:06 AM EST

    He needs a backbone.

    Parent
    True. But you and he have exactly (none / 0) (#105)
    by scribe on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:51:17 AM EST
    the same lede.

    FWIW, when I first saw it move this morning (only a couple minutes after it hit the wires) I, too, thought it was a gag.  I thought it was one of those spoof diaries over at Kos that suddenly gets run up the pole when everyone starts reading and recommending it.  I didn't believe it until I saw it on the crawl under the morning newscast on TV, about an hour later.

    Parent

    Farce or not, it might give him some leverage (none / 0) (#160)
    by magster on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:32:54 AM EST
    in the UN with Iran, Israeli/Palestinian conflict, etc.  I say accept it and use it.

    Parent
    You must be joking (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:38:29 AM EST
    And the RNC, Drudge, RedState and the Taliban (none / 0) (#122)
    by domer5000 on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:03:02 AM EST
    And The Times of London (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:05:12 AM EST
    and most sane people.

    ObamaBots of course disagree.

    Parent

    "ObamaBots" helped elect (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 10:13:14 AM EST
    a Democratic President.

    Parent
    This Obamabot (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 10:15:41 AM EST
    thinks he should turn it down.  But he won't.

    Parent
    Obama turn this down (5.00 / 14) (#80)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:36:41 AM EST
    because he did absolutely nothing to earn it?

    Come on, you got to be kidding. He, according to his own description, is the vessels who others fill with their own expectations.

    The Nobel committee gave him an award because they hoped he would do something based on his rhetoric. Sound familiar.

    Parent

    You are not alone in your disbelief (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:34:31 AM EST
    Even key WH aides couldn't believe it

    Two key White House aides wereboth convinced they "were being punked" when they heard the news, reported ABC News' George Stephanopoulos. "It's not April 1, is it?" one said. CC's dedicated link


    Parent
    I thought CNN was kidnapped by The Onion (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by talesoftwokitties on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:35:27 AM EST
    Wow, just W-O-W.

    Parent
    And my third was - he should turn it down (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:52:04 AM EST
    It is the only decent thing to do.

    The only good outcome of this is that it has the dittoheads in my office talking about how Gore and Carter really deserved their prizes! A farce it is.

    Parent

    I uh.....uhhh.... (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by Faust on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 07:38:51 AM EST
    Hmmm. Yup. So strange that I woke up pulled up my news page and I can't make heads of tails of this. I thought it was an Onion headline. But nope. There it is. "Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize."

    My second thought was: "Hey it's a consolation prize for losing the Olympics!"

    Maybe your right, maybe he should turn it down. Is there any possible downside to turning it down? Has it ever been done before?

    The Onion generally does call its shot (5.00 / 7) (#69)
    by lambert on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:33:17 AM EST
    Remember Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'?

    The Onion's pretty good at farce. So, the fact they didn't call their shot on this one shows what an outlier it really is, since life imitates Onion farce so frequently.

    Parent

    Ha! (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Faust on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:42:39 AM EST
    Greenwald thought it was an Onion gag to. I wonder how many people thought that? Probably all Onion readers.

    Parent
    You know what would be genius? (5.00 / 8) (#100)
    by Faust on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:49:43 AM EST
    If the Onion just posts:

    "Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize!" as their headline.

    Parent

    my first thought (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by jes on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 07:50:19 AM EST
    I'm a bit abashed to say, "he really must  be the anti-Christ." Why, who knows?

    But I don't think he should turn it down. It is a really is a political pick. Hope he lives up to the nudge towards peace.

    I thought that's what my fundamentalist (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by sallywally on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:39:16 AM EST
    relatives would think. But that's silly: everyone knows the antichrist is a Republican <snark>.

    I don't think he should turn it down. He should take it seriously and make a stronger stand for peace. Not that he will, I fear. But turning the prize down imo would validate the meme that he's a bad choice and dishonor the prize.

    The fact that the administration didn't have an immediate comment implies they're taken aback and/or embarrassed about their policies or inaction on important matters.

    And that they know this will put all his actions in a new light on the world stage and create a benchmark that will compare everything he does to the prize.

    I know it's all considered political, but I like the fact that Carter, Gore, Krugman and now Obama have received the prize. How many Republicans have won it?

    Parent

    Krugman's prize was for economics (5.00 / 6) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:50:25 AM EST
    Gore for his work on climate change.

    Carter for his body of work on peace.

    Teddy Roosevelt won for negotiating the end of the Russo-Japanese war.

    Woodrow Wilson won for creating the League of Nations (one worth considering in that the US Senate then denied the US entry onto the League.)

    Parent

    Did they do as well in the Swimsuit Competition? (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by Ellie on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:20:49 AM EST
    When the tear-away suits came off to show off the goods, the only other short-listed head of state who even came close was Vladi "yo Daddy" Putin.

    Obama was clearly the more eye-popping hunka stripped down manflesh.

    Yowzah! Don't shake at me naked on payday!

    Parent

    The standard has clearly changed (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 10:19:53 AM EST
    This reminds of the saying, "It's better to be lucky than good."

    Parent
    "He should take it seriously" (5.00 / 7) (#121)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:02:21 AM EST
    I wouldn't count on it. In fact, he's probably filling out the nomination paperwork so Michelle can win next year. Deadline is only a few months away.

    The fact that the administration didn't have an immediate comment implies they're taken aback and/or embarrassed about their policies or inaction on important matters.

    Now, this part of your comment got me thinking. His nomination was submitted 10 days after he was sworn into office. I want to know who submitted him. That person had hopes they thought would materialize before the awards were actually handed out. When it was obvious that was not going to happen, they probably prayed with all their might that someone else would win.

    The world is getting a good laugh at his expense. And, I sincerely hope he sees it that way. Otherwise, we're in for much more of the same while he thinks he's doing an award-worthy job.

    He needs to turn it down.


    Parent

    Teddy Roosevelt for one (none / 0) (#95)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:47:36 AM EST
    I think Charles Evans Hughes or some Rep Sec of State might have also.

    Hoover did not but easily could have for his work after WW I in helping to feed refugees from that war.

    Parent

    Also Kissinger... (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:22:07 AM EST
    ... which indicates that it often has a rather tenuous connection to peacefulness.

    Parent
    maybe to much early Bible indoctrination (none / 0) (#102)
    by jes on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:50:16 AM EST
    for me; I thought it had worn off long ago. But BTD is beginning to convince me that maybe he should turn it down. There certainly is a bit of a nasty implication that could be drawn and exploited from the pick.

    Parent
    why do they hate America? (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by souvarine on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:48:03 AM EST
    TAPPED noted that the Taliban and the National Review condemned the prize. Seems to me the natural question to them is "Why do you hate America?"

    This is an obvious opportunity to further marginalize the loony right.


    Parent

    I was shocked but I'm still happy for some weird (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by Angel on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 07:52:42 AM EST
    reason.  I guess they see something that we don't or can't because we're Americans.  Maybe it has to do with the fact that there's such a contrast with the leadership now than the past eight years that it was striking enough for them to think it is worthy of recognition.  

    Or they can't see what we see... (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by lambert on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:33:54 AM EST
    .... because they're Europeans.

    Parent
    ...such a contrast ... (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by desertswine on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 10:08:25 AM EST
    "...with the leadership now than the past eight years that it was striking enough for them to think it is worthy of recognition."

    Maybe so...  compared with Bush and the Neocons, Obama must look like Mother Teresa to them.  


    Parent

    I was quite surprised (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 07:52:51 AM EST
    I was sort of hoping for Piedad Cordoba; I know she's a bit of a controversial figure, but I think actually getting out there in the jungles and deserts of the world and actively working for peace where peace seems unfathomable is what the Peace Prize is supposed to be about.

    I do think Obama's done some good things in order to promote the role of diplomacy and civil international relations in the world, but it isn't the kind of firsthand, bare-knuckles work that I think the Peace Prize should be given for.

    That said, I hope Obama doesn't turn it down. I like what the Nobel Prizes stand for, and there's already been a movement in this country by some to delegitimize them. I'd hate to see the President turn it down for fear that it would strike a bigger blow to the credibility of the Nobel Prizes than the self-inflicted wound they just gave themselves was.

    Who in your opinion deserved it more and why? (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 07:55:33 AM EST
    Here's the criteria:

    In his 1895 will, Alfred Nobel, founder of the award, had directed committees selected by the Swedish president to reward "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."

    Which of the nominees this year should have won?

    From the AP:

    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.

    Speaking for me only, President Obama - accept it and live up to it.

    Are you kidding me? (5.00 / 11) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:00:05 AM EST
    "the person who shall have done . . ."

    Obama has not actually DONE anything with regard to peace.

    My gawd.

    Parent

    I guess they think... (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:17:29 AM EST
    ... that his great acheivement for peace was getting elected. He hasn't done much else, and certainly hadn't by the nominating deadline, two weeks into his Presidency.

    Giving the award to Obama doesn't do Obama any favors, and it discredits the Nobel committee, reinforcing the existing perception on the right (and a fair amount of the center) that it's a partisan-left organization.

    Parent

    Good point on the nominating deadline (none / 0) (#76)
    by lambert on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:34:57 AM EST
    Makes you wonder what was actually done in the interim.

    Parent
    I am glad my initial reaction is validated in TL (4.80 / 5) (#26)
    by star on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:10:09 AM EST
    I was beyond shocked.. this is not good for Obama.. the world is setting too much expectaion on him and he HAS DONE NOTHING to earn it..

    Regarding 'NOT being Bush'.. I am not so sure how much longer that opinion will last if Obama takes his VP's advice and start indescriminate use of drones to bomb away the Talibs..

    These stuff was rumoured to be political for sometime, now it is confirmed and the Nobell organization has made a joke of itself with this announcement..

    I also wonder how Bill Clinton is feeling this morning .. after all the efforts he made to bring peace to mid east and his global intiative touching so many lives, talk is all it took Obama to bag the PEACE prize

    Parent

    Opposite (5.00 / 12) (#33)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:14:42 AM EST
    the world is setting too much expectaion on him

    I think this shows the world expects too little from him. Once again, he is given a position of value that rightfully should belong to someone else and is under no obligation to do a thing to earn the honor. The rules seem to change to allow a path for this guy to reach heights others have to work for.

    Parent

    His code name (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:15:13 AM EST
    should be "Detour" for the secret service.

    Parent
    I'm not Bush, either! (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 10:24:31 AM EST
    And I could use the cash. Can I get the prize?

    Parent
    Bill Clinton? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:11:42 AM EST
    What's he got to do with this?

    Parent
    IMO (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by star on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:18:01 AM EST
    Bill clinton is a much more deserving candidate to this prize than Obama

    Parent
    Hell (5.00 / 8) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:20:31 AM EST
    Your next door neighbor is probably more deserving.

    Look, I am in favor of the President's Afghanistan policy but one thing it does is basically disqualify you from a peace prize.

    My gawd.

    Parent

    No I am not (none / 0) (#24)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:08:52 AM EST
    The question I posed to you was not about President Obama. It was about  which nominee you think  deserved it more andy why.

    I asked for your opinion. I'd value hearing your thought as to who should have won.

    Please don't cop out by saying all of them deserved it more, tell me who you think should have won and why.

    Parent

    I know nothing of the other nominees (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:10:46 AM EST
    Nothing at all.

    But are you seriously arguing that you doubt that ANY of them have more actual accomplishments with regard to peace than President Obama?

    You can not be serious.

    Here's a cop out question for you - list Obama's accomplishments regarding peace.

    Parent

    I am sorry to hear you have no opinion (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:14:53 AM EST
    I would have enjoyed reading your case for your proposed nominee.

    As for your question. I can only repeat what I said:

     President Obama- accept it and live up to it.  

    Parent

    I repeat what I said (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:19:09 AM EST
    President Obama, do not participate in this farce.

    It does you no credit and does harm to your political standing.

    Honor a different nominee if you like. But do not participate in this farce.

    Parent

    The question is not who deserved it more (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:01:28 AM EST
    The question is who did not? I doubt there was a nominee not more deserving than Obama.

    Parent
    but (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:39:21 AM EST
    do you really think he will?
    doesnt seem in character but I would like him more if he did.

    still,  I cant help but take a little pleasure in the sound of exploding heads in the morning.

    Parent

    They should have lauded Limbaugh for Medicine (5.00 / 8) (#104)
    by Ellie on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:50:25 AM EST
    ... for selflessly donating himself -- as both carcass and researcher -- to study the effects of illegally obtained drugs on a brain that's already beyond the most extreme meth trip.

    Glenn Beck / Literature: I have no effin' idea what he's squawking about, so it must be good.

    Hmmm, the reasons pretty much present themselves. Maybe it's a sentimental choice.

    Since Nobel was a dynamite magnate, maybe Obama got it for fostering and exacerbating a global culture of blowing sh!t up.

    Parent

    The media has really let us down (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:00:39 AM EST
    Why didn't we know about the monumental accomplishments that earned him this honor.

    Apparently, the nomination was submitted just two weeks into his presidency.

    Molly makes a good point...."live up to it", but, I fear, it diminishes the honor of the award to have it given out so loosely.

    It is a farce (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:02:12 AM EST
    President Obama should not participate in it.

    Parent
    Yes, 100% agree (none / 0) (#20)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:06:28 AM EST
    I should have put the snark tag.

    Parent
    the committee has put him in an awkward position (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by kempis on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:02:44 AM EST
    I don't know if he can gracefully turn it down, but that was my first reaction to the news, too.

    The controversy generated by honoring someone who has only been in office less than a year--primarily because he "inspires hope"--will likely outweigh the benefits.

    This is a shame.

    The Committee was graceless in its actions (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:05:03 AM EST
    Obama can politely say "I am humbled and believe the Committee would be better served to choose another nominee."

    Parent
    Hope should never be underestimated (none / 0) (#23)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:07:49 AM EST
    it is a powerful force.  I am a RI native and the motto on our state flag reads "Hope."

    Parent
    The HOPE Awards (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:09:16 AM EST
    No one more surprised than Obama I imagine (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:04:28 AM EST
    but he should not turn it down.  He should accept it as a sign of the hope people have in him to restore a rational US foreign policy.  Hopefully it will remind Obama throughout the remainder of his Presidency of his responsibility and the confidence people around the world have in him to do the right things.  No doubt the committee was positively reinforcing positive behavior, the moving away, to whatever degree, from Bush-Cheney insanity.

    I am sure he'll donate the money to some worthy endeavor.

    It's a sign of a farce (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:05:46 AM EST
    You never want to be seen as participating in that.

    Parent
    These are sober people who decided this (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:13:07 AM EST
    I probably would not have voted for Obama but they did.  I think it is disrespectful to call their work a "farce."  Some said that when Al Gore and Jimmy Carter won.  

    I also do not think this is something Obama sought or affirmatively participated in, he was selected.  It is an awesome tribute and one would think something he would feel compelled as leader of the world's most militarized nation to earn going forward.  That would be a good thing for everyone.

    Parent

    I thought they might be able to argue (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:16:53 AM EST
    they were drunk when they voted.

    But now you tell me they were sober . . .

    So crazy is all that's left.

    Parent

    I think they wanted to show that they hated (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by steviez314 on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:25:56 AM EST
    Bush even more than we did.

    Parent
    This does not help in that (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:34:33 AM EST
    A farce.

    Parent
    BTW certainly I am disrespectful (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:17:27 AM EST
    of a farce.

    You should be too.

    Parent

    I disagree with your premise that it is a farce (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:31:54 AM EST
    Again, Not my choice but then it's not my job to choose.  It is their award, they are the guardians of it and live with the consequences of their selection for good or ill.  I am certain the selection commitee was aware of the likely repurcussions and potential "diminishing" of the award yet they selected Obama anyway.  They reviewed the nominations and arguments for and against and chose, for some reason unfathomable to me, Obama out of the lot.

    Who am I to call that a farce?  I have no idea who else was  being considered, what evidence supported them or any of the other considerations that goes into making the award. I have no responsibility for seeing that the award retain its reputation etc.

    I would prefer to see Obama say "Thank you, I do not believe I have earned this but I will strive everyday to be judged worthy of this honor."  And I think it cannot help but impact and inform his thinking, in a positive way, on world events going forward.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by vicndabx on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:35:43 AM EST
    And I think it cannot help but impact and inform his thinking, in a positive way, on world events going forward


    Parent
    Unless It Goes the Other Way (5.00 / 8) (#108)
    by The Maven on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:54:04 AM EST
    by giving Obama a feeling of carte blanche on the international scene on the grounds that he's been pre-endorsed by having won this Prize.  With the attendant prestige involved, this could well all just go to his head.  Call me cynical here, but it could potentially lead to an attitude of "whatever I'm doing must be the right thing to do", which is pretty much the same line of thinking that George Bush employed.

    I very much hope that I'm proven wrong in these fears, but his actual record so far in office is what has brought them about in the first place.

    Parent

    Whatever Obama's faults, (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 10:03:09 AM EST
    and he has dislayed many, employing the same line of thinking as GW Bush in that general a manner has not been one.  

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:34:06 AM EST
    You have a right to disagree.

    Parent
    I'm sure (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Left of the Left on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:05:04 AM EST
    he will give an amazing speech about how he intends to live up to it.

    Why should he turn it down? Is there really a downside to keeping it? Downsides totally on the Nobel people as far as I can tell.

    Is there an upside to keeping it? (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:06:46 AM EST
    Is participating in a farce a smart move?

    I think it would do Obama a great deal of good politically to turn it down.

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Pol C on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:14:53 AM EST
    As near as I can tell, everyone but the most hardened kool-aid snorters is rolling their eyes at this. It's turning Obama into an international joke. He should respectfully decline the award.

    Parent
    There are just enough member of the fan base (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by andgarden on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:26:27 AM EST
    to talk him into taking this seriously. And that would be a huge mistake IMO.

    I hope Axe can figure out what to do about this.

    Parent

    I would (5.00 / 7) (#57)
    by lentinel on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:26:53 AM EST
    be happy if he turned it down and acknowledged that he had done nothing to deserve it. This is slated to happen around the same time that pigs are scheduled to fly.

    It's as if they think that giving this to Obama will give him an appetite to do something real. Like one would encourage a ten year old.

    I'm afraid it will have the opposite effect. If he can get the peace prize by threatening and engaging in war and being inept at diplomacy, why - the sky's the limit.

    Maybe they just fell under the same spell that allowed so many to ignore Obama's record and vote for him anyway hoping he would be different once elected.

    To me this is like a strange mass hypnosis.

    Parent

    Yes when he considers questions or war and peace (4.40 / 5) (#74)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:34:52 AM EST
    he will look at that award on his desk and be reminded of how people around the world see him as a peace maker.  


    Parent
    Oy (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:46:18 AM EST
    Well, first he needs to be looking (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by vml68 on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:52:59 AM EST
    at that desk (sans Nobel prize) and start thinking about the hopes and dreams of the people in this country and why they gave him the opportunity to sit there.

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#180)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 10:04:43 AM EST
    but those are not the concerns taken into account when they hand out the Nobel Peace Prize.  

    Parent
    Oh definitely (none / 0) (#32)
    by Left of the Left on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:14:35 AM EST
    Turning it down would be a classy move. I think it will depend on public opinion. There are people that think hes deserving of it.

    If he personally thinks he can live up to it I dont think he'll turn it down. Unless the public clearly goes against it.  

    Parent

    Well... (5.00 / 8) (#58)
    by lambert on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:27:51 AM EST
    "If he personally thinks he can live up to it"

    Of course he does. Modesty, I think, does not figure largely in Obama's set of character traits, and why would it?

    Parent

    Lives up to it? (5.00 / 8) (#66)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:31:10 AM EST
    I'm pretty sure he has the capability of thinking he has really earned this.


    Parent
    Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by prittfumes on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:00:09 AM EST
    Like he earned the right to be leader of the free world.

    Parent
    And, (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:03:50 AM EST
    Harvard Law Review.

    Parent
    Modesty is not a trait of any politician (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:36:42 AM EST
    I got issues with Obama but his lack of modesty is not one of them.  Modest people do not run for President.

    Parent
    Why? Because it feeds the Republican narrative (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by esmense on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:48:48 AM EST
    about him...that he thinks over-much of himself and relies on little more than "charisma", that liberal elites ask nothing more from him than pretty speeches, that he values and panders to elite world opinion over the best interests of his own country, blah, blah, blah.

    Republicans are overjoyed at this development.

    Politically, rejecting the award would be smart -- an opportunity to demonstrate the one attribute that can best counter this developing narrative; humility.

    Parent

    One would think it impossible... (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:11:48 AM EST
    to ok the continued violent occupation of two nations and win the Nobel Peace Prize...it's almost Orwellian...did they rename the Pentagon the Ministry of Love too?

    Lemme guess...this guy is heading the Nobel Committee.

    Getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan is (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:20:53 AM EST
    not the easiest thing to do, it will take time.  I hope his tussle with McChrystal indicates a change in his previously espoused views on Afghanistan.  I have no idea what a "win" there is suppose to look like.  Al Queda numbers in Afghanistan are diminished, some say to less than 100.  

    Time to deal with the Taliban and insist they not allow the country to once again become a safe harbor for terrorists or else the US will be back.  If we get that, we should leave.  I do not think the past 8 years have been pleasant for the Taliban so I have every reason to think we will get that assurance in writing and in practice.

    Parent

    Even the soldiers... (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:30:24 AM EST
    don't know what a "win" looks like...if that ain't a sign to pack it in and give peace a chance I don't know what is.

    I hope this Nobel doesn't warp Obama's mind any further into thinking you can be a friend to peace and an occupier at the same time.

    Parent

    Being a violent warmonger doesn't disqualify you (none / 0) (#51)
    by Pol C on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:22:34 AM EST
    Keep in mind two previous winners of this thing were Henry Kissinger and Yasir Arafat.

    Obama's win reminds me of Rigoberta Menchu's. Of course, nobody knew who the hell she was before or after she was named, so it proved easy to forget about. Everyone knows who Obama is.

    Parent

    Sure, (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:35:56 AM EST
    but neither one was nominated before they had finished unpacking and getting to work in the position that got them nominated. They did actually do some work toward finding peace in  big world conflicts.


    Parent
    Kissinger? (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:42:55 AM EST
    finding peace?  I must have missed that.

    Parent
    to make your point.

    Parent
    A carrot AND a stick. (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by rise hillary rise on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:14:06 AM EST
    the subtext: the announcement comes as Obama has wavered on Israel's settlement building and appears to be ready to capitulate and (again)escalate the troop presence in AfPak.

    while I agree that the award may be premature, it IS a powerful statement that Obama is the only one who can influence the two biggest trouble spots out there. and I think it does put some weight behind his efforts in dealing with Netanyahu. the world is watching.

    May be premature? (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:15:41 AM EST
    You really believe this? (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:24:12 AM EST
    it IS a powerful statement that Obama is the only one who can influence the two biggest trouble spots out there

    This award is not a powerful statement, and I seriously doubt Obama is the only one who can influence those trouble spots. His plan right now is hardly peaceful.

    Giving him this award just encourages more of the same out of him...why should he bother to improve or get to work now? He's already got the recognition. This is a pattern in his life.

    Someone who deserved this award has been overlooked. Those people probably aren't looking for these statues of accomplishment, though.


    Parent

    Turn it down (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by star on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:14:53 AM EST
    And earn the respect of the world..and the citizens he has promised to serve.
    he could be thankful and humble,  but tell them to reconsider him AFTER he has DONE something towards disarming Nukes, stopping Irans Nukes, setting up a peaceful palestine and israel , withdrawing troops from iraq, getting rid of taleban threat and having young girls actually go to schools in Afghanistan, and closing Guntanamo bay instead of talking about closing it..

    Apparently their criteria (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by andgarden on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:18:37 AM EST
    aren't what most of us thought they were. In any case, I agree that this is not a helpful development.

    I have been sick this week (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by me only on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:19:12 AM EST
    what is the date today, April 1st?

    Glenn tells us what's wrong with (5.00 / 10) (#45)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:19:52 AM EST
    this picture:

    The changed tone to Iran notwithstanding, his administration frequently emphasizes that it is preserving the option to bomb that country, too -- which could be a third war against a Muslim country fought simultaneously under his watch.  He's worked tirelessly to protect his country not only from accountability -- but also transparency -- for the last eight years of war crimes, almost certainly violating America's treaty obligations in the process.  And he is currently presiding over an expansion of the legal black hole at Bagram while aggressively demanding the right to abduct people from around the world, ship them there, and then imprison them indefinitely with no rights of any kind.

    It's certainly true that Obama inherited, not started, these conflicts.  And it's possible that he could bring about their end, along with an overall change in how America interacts with the world in terms of actions, not just words.  If he does that, he would deserve immense credit -- perhaps even a Nobel Peace Prize.  But he hasn't done any of that.  And it's at least just as possible that he'll do the opposite:  that he'll continue to escalate the 8-year occupation of Afghanistan, preside over more conflict in Iraq, end up in a dangerous confrontation with Iran, and continue to preserve many of the core Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies that created such a stain on America's image and character around the world.

    Through no fault of his own, Obama presides over a massive war-making state that spends on its military close to the amount of the rest of the world combined.  The U.S. accounts for almost 70% of worldwide arms sales.  We're currently occupying and waging wars in two separate Muslim countries and at making clear we reserve the "right" to attack a third.  Someone who made meaningful changes to those realities would truly be a man of peace.  It's unreasonable to expect that Obama would magically transform all of this in nine months, and he certainly hasn't.  Instead, he presides over it and is continuing much of it.  One can reasonably debate how much blame he merits for all of that, but there are simply no meaningful "peace" accomplishment in his record -- at least not yet -- and there's plenty of the opposite.  That's what makes this Prize so painfully and self-evidently ludicrous.

     

    Obama won't turn it down - he has always chosen to identify himself by what he says, not by what he does, so he will not see the disconnect that others do.

    Through no fault of his own (5.00 / 5) (#186)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 10:09:06 AM EST
    Obama presides over a massive war-making state that spends on its military close to the amount of the rest of the world combined.

    Last time I checked he pursued the job every day in every way......

    Now, it is no fault of his own?

    Parent

    Maybe for bravely flipping off this Baaaad Man (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by Ellie on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:20:06 AM EST
    Huzzah for this brave, peace-defining stance from Obama!

    Obama postpones meeting with Dalai Lama
    By FOSTER KLUG, Associated Press, 2009-10-06

    WASHINGTON - A decision by Barack Obama to postpone his first meeting as president with the Dalai Lama is overshadowing a visit to Washington this week by the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet's Buddhists.

    The Dalai Lama arrived Monday in Washington and will be received by prominent lawmakers and the U.S. coordinator for Tibet. But the focus for many in China, Tibet and the United States is the president's decision not to meet with the Dalai Lama until after Obama visits Chinese President Hu Jintao in Beijing in November.

    The Dalai Lama has met with the past three sitting U.S. presidents during his visits to Washington. But this week's trip comes at a delicate time for a new U.S. administration looking to improve relations with Beijing and win Chinese support for crucial foreign policy, economic and environmental goals. ...

    Sure, Mr. Dalai looks serene and is all peace and love and yak yak yak but does the mask come off once popular attention is focused elsewhere? We can't see, can we?

    Why'd he change his name to Jetsun Jamphel Ngawang Lobsang Yeshe Tenzin Gyatso (from Lhamo Döndrub)? Was it to get past the no-fly list?

    At the very least, until he can show that those  sheets -- which are suspiciously girly but I'm not going there right now -- came from a 100% patriotic company like Wal-mart, purveyor of traceable Chinese-made goods and not some local pinko union made textiles, Obama was right to keep his distance.

    Yes, the treatment of the Dalai Lama (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:27:20 AM EST
    that I heard about yesterday came to mind when I saw this headline about the Nobel today.  It brought back to mind the treatment of His Holiness on his first trip to the U.S. -- when I first met him, and when he was dissed then because we were trying to cozy up to China.

    That Obama has returned us to Nixonian times and tactics ought to give pause.

    Parent

    I googled for the (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:40:59 AM EST
    articles on the Dali Lama a day or two ago and found multiple articles stating the intent was always for them to meet after POTUS visited China next month. Dali's people stood firm that no brush off took place.

    The media can't be trusted.


    Parent

    This is not Salvador Dali (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:44:40 AM EST
    we're talking about here.

    Parent
    Maybe Dali deserved the prize. (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 10:00:30 AM EST
    I'm speechless (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:28:25 AM EST
    If only Obama would be.

    But this is another op for an awesome speech on a world stage, another chance to fly in Air Force One -- now that he has left the U.S. more than any other prez in a first year, so he will accept it.

    That he also is the prez with more wars in more countries than any won't stop him -- from accepting the prize, and now from continuing his wars.

    Peace Prize (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Pat Johnson on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:30:13 AM EST
    I am speechless!  Based on what evidence so far that he has earned this prize?  What????

    He was placed into nomination 10 days after he was sworn into office.  Makes no sense.   Surely there must have been more deserving candidates who have actually done something to have been selected but instead they give it to Mr. Platitude Teleprompter.  

    I must be missing something here. Astounding.

    D@mned if you do, D@mned if you don't (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by vicndabx on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:33:16 AM EST
    He's screwed either way with this.  Turn it down and risk offending the peaceniks (not to mention sending the message, "hey, I might not be the dove you all think I am," keep it and offend the sensibilities of anyone who thinks you need to do the work before you reap rewards.

    Personally, I think he should keep it and live up to the ideals tied to the award.

    But this removes one incentive (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:24:46 AM EST
    for Obama to pull out of his wars.  He got the Peace Prize for being in two wars, so why not continue?  He won't get it again for actually getting out.

    Now we just have to hope that the incentive will be a pushback by Progressives if Obama doesn't make  progress toward actual peace.  But then, this also gives him more incentive to ignore pushback. . . .

    Parent

    I hope our president is not that shallow (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by vicndabx on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:41:21 AM EST
    Re: incentives, he should have them already, his two daughters and the world they'll live in.

    Parent
    Well, those incentives (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:45:57 AM EST
    haven't made him a leader on women's issues, so why would they make him a peacemaker?

    Parent
    No. (5.00 / 4) (#187)
    by lentinel on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 10:11:38 AM EST
    Not "hope" again....

    Parent
    aw damn, (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by vicndabx on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 10:22:30 AM EST
    I mean I believe.....

    /nt
    /s

    Parent

    Peace Prize (5.00 / 5) (#90)
    by Pat Johnson on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:43:15 AM EST
    Since he "won" the Nobel Peace Prize for having done, well nothing so far, I think it only fair that the committee consider Sarah Palin for the literature prize as well.  Makes about as much sense.

    Oh, snap! (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by lambert on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:49:12 AM EST
    nt

    Parent
    Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by KeysDan on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:47:17 AM EST
    places President Obama in the awkward position of receiving recognition for unrealized accomplishments and hooks a millstone of potential ridicule around his neck for future national security actions.  Cartoonists, certainly, will have a field day labeling Special Force or drone erased villages as small tokens of our peace efforts.  My goodness, how often have we heard that our expectations for change are unrealistic since Mr. Obama has only been in office a few months? (e.g., DADT, Gitmo, )   A speech declining the prize while humbly accepting the continuing challenge for his administration  to live up to the world's hopes and dreams for peace through strengthened international diplomacy, would be his best one, ever.

    Peace (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Grey on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:49:27 AM EST
    The Beer Summit did it!

    Race baiting at the Orange place (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by andgarden on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:50:09 AM EST
    Furthermore (none / 0) (#116)
    by lilburro on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:00:12 AM EST
    is this even true?

    But that's not how the prize is awarded (7+ / 0-)
    it is not awarded consistently for past accomplishment, but oftentimes for the possibility of future accomplishment.

    "The revolution's just an ethical haircut away..." Billy Bragg

    by grannyhelen on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 06:50:27 AM PDT

    Because I doubt it.

    Parent

    Your doubt is correct (none / 0) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:02:05 AM EST
    To wit, having actually done something to move towards peace is recognized.

    Look Obama is going to escalate the war in Afghanistan (and he is right to imo) but that basically makes this a bad farce.

    Parent

    Thanks (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by lilburro on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:13:44 AM EST
    The stuff people will come up with to defend Obama...

    I agree with you about Afghanistan and add Iraq in there too.  It makes no sense.  I'm also upset that this furthers "the Nobel Peace Prize is a joke" mentality in American politics.  I mean that is f*cked up...we live in a country where a sizeable amount of people laugh at a Peace prize.

    Parent

    After this (5.00 / 5) (#138)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:18:00 AM EST
    you can not blame them.

    Parent
    {head desk} (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by nycstray on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:54:05 AM EST


    somewhere W sulks (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:54:36 AM EST
    "He still aint got no medal uh freedom"

    10,9,8.... (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by lambert on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:54:55 AM EST
    ... on the race card. It  never ends.

    Idiots (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:55:59 AM EST
    a drinking game (none / 0) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:59:24 AM EST
    involving the word "uppity" might be fun

    Parent
    also (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:01:17 AM EST
    it might be good to expose them to the view of yahasif from another blog:

    I disagree completely. After nine months in office the Nobel Peace Prize committee did not act too quickly in giving President Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize Award. Think of it this way, the Nobel committee has been on a roll. What with recent awards going to Yasir Arafat, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore they couldn't wait to add another straw on the camel's back.. so to speak. Ah, smell the peace.

    Parent

    See above (none / 0) (#119)
    by andgarden on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:01:41 AM EST
    I beat you.

    Parent
    Good God (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:57:14 AM EST
    I honestly thought this was an Onion headline!! Actually, the Onion has been far more prescient and knowledgeable than the "real" MSM of late.

    I'm gabberflasted. Utterly smackgobbdled.

    I would love to know who (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:05:20 AM EST
    nominated him, and I would love to read the nomination letter.

    I think the fallout on this is going to be painfully embarrassing.


    What's even funnier .... (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 10:18:14 AM EST
    ... is that the nomination deadline was less than two weeks after he took office.

    Parent
    The one bright spot. (5.00 / 6) (#131)
    by Sweet Sue on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:11:52 AM EST
    The Obama State Department has quickly, quietly and skillfully repaired U.S. relations with  a host of countries and international institutions. Little of that progress is visible if your primary sources of news are the American media

    Then they should have given the prize to Hillary Clinton.

    If the award (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:18:05 AM EST
    was for NOT being Bush, shouldn't his voters be co-recipients?  Maybe that's why some people have "sour grapes" over at the cheeto ;-).

    BTW, there IS quite a precedent for awarding people for nothing.  Seinfeld was a show about nothing and it received Major awards. LOL.

    Obama is about Obama, nothing else.  That, plus the 1.5 million in cash means he isn't going to turn the award down.  

    My only question is, how is he going to turn his acceptance into a Rorscharch test; somehow accepting the award while seeming to not accept it, depending on what the hopey-changey crowd would like for him to do....

    All I know for certain is the Nobel Prize will never be significant in my eyes again.  Never.  The Republicans are right.  The prize is a farce.

    he will (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:19:07 AM EST
    accept it for "everyone"

    Parent
    I'll (5.00 / 5) (#148)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:23:26 AM EST
    expect my check in the mail in a couple weeks?

    Parent
    Then, he had best (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:24:26 AM EST
    distribute the cash among the charities helping the unemployed.


    Parent
    Oh (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:22:17 AM EST
    and gosh, maybe McCain should also be co-named to the award for being an awful candidate, and for being soooo OOOOOOLD and maybe even for nominating Sarah Palin?

    Oh and maybe Bush should be named, for being so awful that he ensured the election of the anti-Bush?

    LOL, I'm getting silly.  Can I please have more coffee?

    Parent

    Respectfully disagree (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Coral on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:21:53 AM EST
    The policies of the last eight years have seriously destabilized the world, and Obama is working diligently to set a new course. I agree with the Nobel Committee and am very happy to see Obama honored with the prize.

    While I don't feel he has done as much as I would have liked in regard to Afghanistan (get out please) and Iraq, I am relieved to see some positive change.
     

    The Not Bush Award (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:25:05 AM EST
    exactly (none / 0) (#156)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:28:08 AM EST
    Concur w/Coral, even (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by brodie on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:54:21 AM EST
    though this one seems a tad premature.

    And even though some might see it cynically as the Not Bush Award.  Being NB is actually a pretty substantial step forward, in my book, even if half of that forward progress occurs just by suiting up, taking the court and sticking to a not very radical game plan.

    And the NBA might actually serve to further pressure Obama from the left as he decides whether or to what extent to escalate in Afghanistan.  Sure would be politically damaging for him to get the award then escalate stupidly and defensively, à la the cowardly Lyndon, in order not to seem weak and as the world watches more US vs Afghan bloodshed.  

    Parent

    Given that Obama is (5.00 / 5) (#185)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 10:08:39 AM EST
    carrying on with many of the worst of the Bush policies, this just doesn't make sense to me.

    It bagan with his FISA vote before the election, and continued when he took office with support of the state secrets privilege under questionable circumstances, and as Glenn says:

    He's worked tirelessly to protect his country not only from accountability -- but also transparency -- for the last eight years of war crimes, almost certainly violating America's treaty obligations in the process.  And he is currently presiding over an expansion of the legal black hole at Bagram while aggressively demanding the right to abduct people from around the world, ship them there, and then imprison them indefinitely with no rights of any kind.

    No, he's not actually George Bush, but he's legitimized and entrenched policies that many of us were hoping would be repudiated.

    He talks a good game, but his actions do not comport with his words.

    Parent

    Have to give the guy credit (5.00 / 4) (#152)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:26:00 AM EST
    I would have expected the Nobel committee to be a lot sharper but...........

    He can certainly talks a great game! H#ll, he convinced the progressive community that he was the anti war candidate, when in reality he voted yes on every war funding bill.

    The guy is good!

    Nobel Prize Commission awarded Prize (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by Illiope on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:26:48 AM EST
    and right after the nobel prize commission awarded obama with the peace prize they, in turn, won the Excellence in Marketing Award, for their skilful use of using the nobel peace prize as an effective gimmick for publicity.

    I am with (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by eric on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:29:10 AM EST
    Josh Marshall on this one,
    This is an odd award. You'd expect it to come later in Obama's presidency and tied to some particular event or accomplishment. But the unmistakable message of the award is one of the consequences of a period in which the most powerful country in the world, the 'hyper-power' as the French have it, became the focus of destabilization and in real if limited ways lawlessness. A harsh judgment, yes. But a dark period. And Obama has begun, if fitfully and very imperfectly to many of his supporters, to steer the ship of state in a different direction. If that seems like a meager accomplishment to many of the usual Washington types it's a profound reflection of their own enablement of the Bush era and how compromised they are by it, how much they perpetuated the belief that it was 'normal history' rather than dark aberration.

    LINK

    BTD, you are why I love this site (5.00 / 5) (#158)
    by Slado on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:30:48 AM EST
    While we disagree on most things we often agree on many things (like Tebow is awesome) and this.

    I shrugged when they gave Gore a prize, Carter and Yasser Arafat but this one has no reasoning.  I mean if you believe what you believe there was an argument for the others but this one is pure balderdash.

    This president is fighting two wars and wrongly in still fighting a war against terror that is only different the Bush in terms of rhetoric and for that he deserves a Nobel Peace prize?

    This is the type of Euro-UN-political statement that drives so many in this country crazy and if Obama signs on he's crazy.

    He should go make a speech, respectfully decline and use this as an opportunity to endear himself to those who are growing weary of Obamamania.

    Wow (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by Steve M on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:41:04 AM EST
    I also thought this was some kind of joke.  It's like the "his heart seems to be in the right place" award.  What does he do for an encore?!

    I sure wish the people of the world were willing to give Obama a free pass on stuff like Afghanistan the way the Nobel Committee apparently is, but I rather doubt that is the case.  And has anyone polled Militarytracy on this selection?

    Le Duc Tho turned it down (5.00 / 7) (#172)
    by songster on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:54:17 AM EST
    when he and Kissinger were awarded it.  Wikipedia:

    Lê Ðức Thọ and Henry Kissinger were jointly awarded the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts in negotiating the Paris Peace Accords.[2] However, he declined to accept the award, stating that there was still no peace in his country.


    At least it wasn't the Nobel for economics! (5.00 / 6) (#175)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:55:40 AM EST


    Can we get Kanye West to interrupt (5.00 / 9) (#176)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:59:36 AM EST
    his acceptance speech?

    Stay tuned for the IOC's announcement awarding ... (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 10:14:36 AM EST
    ...
    Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards
    the Ski Jump gold medal for eloquently expressing his desire to "jump the farthest."

    Losers (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by JohnRJ08 on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 11:46:16 AM EST
    Leave it to right win morons to complain when the President of the United States wins the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Freedom is wasted on you people.

    First Nobel ever for PONIES!!!!!! LOL (4.66 / 12) (#53)
    by lambert on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:24:21 AM EST
    No, seriously:

    The Nobel committee recognized Obama's efforts to solve complex global problems including working toward a world free of nuclear weapons.

    "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 committee said.

    Jagland said the decision was "unanimous" and came with ease.


    Seems to me the Grammies would have been better -- "Best New Act Based Entirely On A Marketing Slogan" for example.

    Now, if only they could have awarded the prize for "change."

    Hahahaha (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by lilburro on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:46:58 AM EST
    I was waiting for the ponies joke!  I was thinking damn, the Nobel Prize Committee really wants one of those ponies...

    Parent
    Hillary should have won (none / 0) (#128)
    by domer5000 on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:06:51 AM EST
    of course

    Parent
    They should rename it (4.40 / 5) (#7)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 07:59:15 AM EST
    The Nobel Prize for Not Being George Bush.  And that prize, he has earned.

    He has? (5.00 / 9) (#10)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:01:14 AM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    Sure (4.25 / 4) (#50)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:21:54 AM EST
    He is demonstrably not George Bush. He's no liberal, but he's not Bush.

    Parent
    I'm (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by lentinel on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:33:33 AM EST
    sure that the prisoners still being held at Guantanimo, the families of those slaughtered by the pilotless drones dropping bombs over Pakistan and Afghanistan, the families of soldiers still fighting for who-knows-what in Iraq and Afghanistan - are real pleased that Obama is not Bush. It's much nicer to have all this horror inflicted by someone other than Bush.

    Parent
    Neither am I (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by lentinel on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:30:17 AM EST
    Can I have a prize?

    Parent
    You are as deserving as Pres. Obama (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:40:23 AM EST
    As am I.  All I said was that he was being awarded for not being the previous President. I didn't say he deserves the prize for anything that he has actually accomplished.

    Parent
    Well give it to us then. (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by lilburro on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:48:28 AM EST
    We voted him in!

    Parent
    I had the same thought! (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:07:32 AM EST
    I thought it should go to the American people, for being so hopeful. :-)

    Parent
    The (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by lentinel on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 10:08:05 AM EST
    prize the American people have gotten for being so irrationally hopeful is of the booby variety.

    Parent
    can't agree (4.00 / 6) (#75)
    by souvarine on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:34:56 AM EST
    Obama has completely reversed the United State's stance toward the international community and the U.N. He has made real progress at reducing nuclear weapons, largely by moving first to reduce our own arsenal.

    The Obama State Department has quickly, quietly and skillfully repaired U.S. relations with  a host of countries and international institutions. Little of that progress is visible if your primary sources of news are the American media.

    The Nobel Committee has looked at all of that progress, understands its importance to peace in the world, and chose to encourage it. Obama should use their endorsement to further his initiatives, especially around reducing nuclear weapons.


    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by star on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:43:53 AM EST
    "The Obama State Department has quickly, quietly and skillfully repaired U.S. relations with  a host of countries and international institutions"

    Please list the accomplishments that came out of this skillfull repair..

    Parent

    well... (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by souvarine on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:51:20 AM EST
    he won a Nobel Peace Prize.

    ;)


    Parent

    The bombs dropping in Afghansitan (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:37:58 AM EST
    which I support, make this a farce.

    Parent
    Not to Mention (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by BDB on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:43:08 AM EST
    Bagram and Gitmo.

    Parent
    peace, not pacifist (2.00 / 1) (#117)
    by souvarine on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:00:36 AM EST
    Sure, and many people consider Kissinger's peace prize award a farce. But the prize is not for pacifism, it is for peacemaking. The committee uses the prize to advance peacemaking efforts, and on balance it is hard to come up with someone doing more, more effectively, to advance world peace than Barack Obama.

    Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, expanding our military, all of these things argue against Obama as peace maker. But on the other hand you have to look at the new direction of our military under Gates, the far more prominent role State plays in decision making, and the real progress we are making even with intractable states like Iran.


    Parent

    Kissinger neogitated a peace agreement (none / 0) (#123)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:03:09 AM EST
    But even that was a farce because the US was a belligerent.

    I do not see how invoking Kissinger helps you here.

    Parent

    40 years (none / 0) (#178)
    by souvarine on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 10:02:13 AM EST
    Because if you think Obama's prize is a farce, and you think the 1973 prize was a farce, then you'll probably find most of the prizes over the last 40 years or more a farce. And in that case, why would you care who gets the Peace Prize? By those lights the prize is a meaningless farce and has been for generations.

    So why shouldn't Obama use it as an international PR opportunity to advance his interests? Or do you think he has some obligation to keep it real and reject meaningless prizes on principal even though doing so would waste an opportunity to shape world opinion to our benefit?

    Parent

    Why? (none / 0) (#193)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 10:16:21 AM EST
    Because Obama's opposition now has a tool to use against him that will unite the right and the center.

    Everything he does will now be filtered against "doing the bidding of the peacenik Eurocrats" instead of protecting the financial and safety interests of Americans.

    I can only say thanks to the committee. We couldn't have done it ourselves.

    Parent

    Yup. nt (none / 0) (#198)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 10:24:19 AM EST
    The nuclear stuff is the strongest argument... (none / 0) (#85)
    by lambert on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:39:49 AM EST
    ... to my mind, which is why I uprated the comment. I confess I regarded it as the usual bullsh*t, so didn't look into it. For all I know, there's actual performance there aside from speeches. Anybody got any linky goodness?

    Parent
    Obama's pattern (3.00 / 4) (#167)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:42:43 AM EST
    Obama's pattern is to shoot for jobs and positions he know he really doesn't deserve, and to get them by whatever means necessary that doesn't actually involve hard work. And for some unfathomable reason, people all his life have given him a helping hand to snag those undeserved spots. This is part of the same pattern.

    And it's also his pattern to accept all this as his due so I think it's highly unlikely he will turn it down.

    I would not be in the least surprised to discover that he was the one who set the nomination in motion. Not in the slightest.

    Just curious.... (3.00 / 2) (#201)
    by JohnRJ08 on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 11:47:16 AM EST
    How can trolling not be tolerated in a blog where 99% of the participants are trolls?

    I thought that last year's (none / 0) (#56)
    by Fabian on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:26:44 AM EST
    award was at least partly a slap at the Bush administration, but the people who received it were worthy and did a lot of good work.

    This year?  Nominated after having barely begun his first term in office....I just don't know.  Would Hillary Clinton have gotten the award in an alternate universe?  That would still be ridiculous.

    Armando (none / 0) (#60)
    by me only on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 08:29:21 AM EST
    This stirred Cohen out of his coma.  (I know you hate the guy, but he must have been okay at one point, 4 honorable mentions for the Pulitzer.)  Personally I thought the Vaughn part was hilarious.

    not defending O or the swedes (none / 0) (#130)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:08:37 AM EST
    but perhaps its just a nod to the US for electing the "not Bush".
    stupid I know.  but I think this is important to the rest of the world.

    plus I cant think of another reason.


    like I said (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by lilburro on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:14:44 AM EST
    give it to me!

    or Josh Marshall, or something.

    Parent

    "the other reasons" (none / 0) (#133)
    by Fabian on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:13:52 AM EST
    are a puzzler to me as well!

    Frankly, if they are handing out awards for international diplomacy, then Hillary should be a shoo in for 2010.  No, I don't think she deserves it - yet.

    Parent

    actually (none / 0) (#136)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:17:10 AM EST
    that rather bitter comment from the apparently middle eastern person upthread had a bit of the ring of truth about it to me.

    Parent
    that I posted (none / 0) (#137)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:17:31 AM EST
    from another blog.

    Parent
    I so wish (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Fabian on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:26:07 AM EST
    we didn't have to do other nations' peace brokering for them.

    Yes, the mid east situation stinks, and has stunk for decade after decade.  Blaming on the United States or Israel is simplistic.  Yes, we are partly to blame, but there's no unanimous rush towards peace that we are blocking.  

    Parent

    The only difference between the two (none / 0) (#147)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:23:02 AM EST
    is the spelling of their name.

    Parent
    Did Arafat deserve one? (none / 0) (#143)
    by Saul on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:21:12 AM EST
    Maybe so maybe not.  Not sure.

    I think also that giving this award on some speeches that Obama which change how the other countries now look at the U.S vs how they look at the U.S. under Bush is a little over the top.

    "He got the prize because he has been able to change the international climate," Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said. "Some people say, and I understand it, isn't it premature? Too early? Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now. It is now that we have the opportunity to respond -- all of us."

     I understand this Peace prize is given out by the Norwegian Parliament committee.  The other Nobels are given by the Swedish.

    Here a good link that discusses the pro and cons on Obama receiving this prize.

    Not just the Onion but also SNL (5.00 / 5) (#174)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 09:54:54 AM EST
    comes to mind, with this from your link -- from the selection committee, which must not watch SNL:

    The Norwegian Nobel Committee decided not to inform Obama before the announcement because it didn't want to wake him up, committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said.

    "Waking up a president in the middle of the night, this isn't really something you do."

    Also interesting to note, mid-link, that re the committee's stated rationale of Obama's work on nuclear reduction, it has been just words -- nothing actually has been done.

    It just gets weirder in this nu world.

    Parent

    try this (none / 0) (#181)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 10:04:50 AM EST
    "The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize,"
    DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO. "


    I guess we are all terrorists (5.00 / 4) (#183)
    by vml68 on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 10:08:20 AM EST
    and Republicans for criticizing Obama!

    Parent
    That, unfortunately, sounds very (5.00 / 4) (#190)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 10:15:02 AM EST
    much like what we heard from the Bush administration when we criticized him.

    Not the change I was hoping for. In fact, no change at all.

    Parent

    New thread (none / 0) (#196)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 10:20:07 AM EST


    it goes without... (none / 0) (#202)
    by alex1 on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 05:14:28 PM EST
    saying that there aren't other more well deserving individuals for this prize. It's a truism.

    We can say the same thing after almost every Academy Award, or Tonys, or Emmys...

    However, I say he take the metal (or medal if you fancy that term) and he start applying some real pressure on his party's senators to enact real change.