Isn’t it awfully early to be talking about “hindsight” for Obama, who is still alive, still President, still in his first term?
That said, if I were the Nobel committee, prizes would never be awarded aspirationally, as I think everyone acknowledged Obama’s was.
Wow, stop the press. When did Bush ever have a leadership position in Africa?
He is probably talking about the fight against AIDS in Africa.
Regards,
Shodan
Oh yeah, “Abstinence Preachings”, leadership material.
He did also spend a shit ton of money (relative to other presidents) on providing retroviral drugs and the like. It wasn’t just, “trust in Jesus”.
The Nobel committee gave Obama the Prize because he was black, pure and simple. To suggest otherwise is to ignore world history in profound ways.
Through the colonial period, whenever an American leader like Roosevelt would bring up the frankly inhuman treatment doled out by imperial powers (the Kenyan kipande system is the first easy example that comes to mind), the ready retort was that the US did similar things to blacks, especially in the South. During the Cold War, whenever an American speaker would denounce communist repression, the ready retort was “And you are lynching Negros!” Barack Obama’s election–just the act of a black man being elected–symbolically closed the door on “First Word” hypocrisy in human rights, at least from an international perspective.
If you say so.
Thanks.
And I meant “First World” above, as in Cold War-era non-communist industrial powers, particulaly NATO. Sorry.
It does leave me a little confused about why they wrote about his work on nuclear disarmament instead of his blackness, though. They could have saved some space on the certificate. Also I’m not sure why the committee is concerned about what the Soviet Union thinks when it’s been gone for almost 20 years.
That is just so weak half of me thinks you are not actually serious.
Well, I’m a little disingenuous about the committee’s stated reasoning, seeing as Barack Obama’s accomplishments in the field of nuclear disarmament at the time of the award were pretty sparse. And, yes, the old Soviet bloc is gone, but the attitude of “How dare the Yankees criticize our human rights record when they keep blacks disenfranchised” is still out there. The election of a black US President means a great deal more abroad than most Americans think. Race is not mentioned in the citation, but the foundations for a better future evidenced by the election of a black American as President–a prospect unthinkable thirty years ago–seem to be the underpinnings of the third paragraph in the Norwegian Committee’s statement.
Perhaps this is a strained exegesis, but hey, if you’d like to offer Obama’s concrete accomplishments in the areas of nuclear disarmament and multilateral diplomacy as of September 2009, go right ahead.
The peace prize isn’t given by Yankees. It’s given by Norwegians.
::headdesk::
That was my reaction when I read “The Nobel committee gave Obama the Prize because he was black, pure and simple. To suggest otherwise is to ignore world history in profound ways.” I don’t think they gave the him prize to congratulate America for electing a black guy. If you want to interpret the part about hope for a better future as a comment on American racial progress, fine. Unfortunately the committee spent the other four paragraphs talking about other things.
I’ve never thought about his point before, but I think Obama may merit a Pulitzer, MacArthur Genuis, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, an Oscar and a Grammy for keeping Palin away from the White House.
Good point: imagine if Palin were president. She may have started drone bombing campaigns in multiple countries, increased torture, or expanded the scope of covert low intensity wars. Good thing that never happened.
What embarassing thing was discovered? Sure, the stunt that Wikileaks pulled did embarass the administration a bit, but there’s nothing embarassing at all in anything that they did.
Certainly nothing we didn’t already know they (and every other State Department) were doing, anyway.
Bludgeoning Palin is evil? Surely the evil one would be whoever brewed her up in a vat and unleashed her on the world. Knocking her on the head so she dissolves into ooze or pile of leeches in front of the TV cameras Just In Time to stop her ascension to power, that’s heroic not evil.
When Obama won, I recall many people talking about it being undeserved and political. Including quite a lot of his supporters. AFAIK even at the time very few people thought the peace prize was deserved, and an increasing number of people have come to think of the peace prize as inherently worthless. I believe the common argument was that an award given to Kissinger for not supporting bombing quite as many civilians as he used to support, Arafat for promising to consider not blowing up civilians, Gore for a slideshow, the UN for disagreeing with Bush, etc really has very little meaning.
Which really is unfortunate. There are a large number of winners that deserved their prize. Mostly the people that, when you look at a list of winners, you go “who the hell is that?” It’s sad the prize has been so debased that the accomplishments of people like Martin Luther King are now treated as equal to giving a powerpoint presentation or some yahoo winning an election.