Eh? Clinton appeared as dovey as mainstream politicians get and was challenging a hawk who had just orchestrated arguably the most successful US military action in history… and won.
You are aware of course that Al Gore never won an Academy Award. It went to Davis Guggenheim.
In an election where national security was almost completely off the table and the economy was by far the biggest issue. Despite the financial crisis I think Iraq, Iran and terrorism were quite important issues and national security played a bigger role in 2008 comapared to 92. And while Bush senior had won a war he wasn't really that hawkish, certainly compared to McCain.
The withdrawl of combat brigades from Iraq is another accomplishment which I doubt would have happened under McCain. And saying it followed Bush’s timetable doesn’t diminish that. It’s one thing to set a timetable for withdrawl and quite another to actually accomplish it.
That’s a good point (that national security was a non-issue in '92).
The Nobel committee wanted to issue a general congratulations to the idea of electing a minority–specifically black–to the office of Presidency. And part of their psychology was also a reaction of their hatred of President Bush, who was, it’s fair to say, a warmongering nitwit for invading Iraq.
At the time of the Award, President Obama had done absolutely nothing beyond what every President tries to do publicly–chat up the general notion of a peaceful world, while dealing with the practical problem of enemies.
As a perennial skeptic to almost all “peace processes,” prizes and feel-good knee-jerk liberalism, I have thoroughly enjoyed what I suspect is a significant discomfort on the part of the Nobel committee with President Obama’s actual–and practical–approach to conflict (as, for example, his escalation and perpetuation of the war in Afghanistan, or keeping Gitmo open).
Here’s what the Committee is humming now:
“Meet the new Boss…same as the old Boss…” between clenched teeth.
But hey, at least he’s Black. It’s not like their blunder of giving a Prize to the Chief Carbon Consumptionist, Al Gore, for his tireless (but carbon-intensive) fight against Anthropogenic Global Climate Catastrophe–or whatever the current acronym is.
Made no mention of Gore, still thinks Obama is deserving of an Academy Award for his portrayal of a sitting President.
All Gore deserves is a swift kick in the a**
Since you’re veering so far off topic, I propose that Gore has seen enough punishment for one life.
(Hunter S Thompson on Florida 2000)
Ronald Reagan certainly should have gotten one for portraying somebody who had a fucking clue, and he was actually an actor.
The criteria for evaluating nominees for the Nobel Prize for Peace is pretty ambiguous ("…shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses,") and subject to a wide range of interpretation. The inclusion of Theodore Roosevelt, Elihu Root, Austen Chamberlain, Henry Kissinger, Mother Teresa, Yasser Arafat, and Al Gore in the list of Nobel Peace Prize laureates indicates that an unwavering dedication to ethical peace, disarmament, and improvement of living conditions is not a definitive or restrictive criteria for evaluation of candidates. It is as often given away as a political gesture as awarded for actual accomplishments, as it clearly was with Barack Obama as a snub (no doubt in response to baseless rumors that George W. Bush, who has done even less to deserve consideration, was ever nominated).
Stranger
I don’t think anyone seriously thought that Reagan had much of a clue even before he got up in front of the Tower Commission and claimed no recollection of authorizing or being informed of weapon shipments.
But seriously, Reagan has a better claim on being a legitimate candidate than Obama on the basis of disarmament insofar as his accomplishments in international relations. I don’t speak, however, of his veiled threats, bombastic statements about “Evil Empires” or ill-informed dreams of an improbably effective Strategic Defense Initiative ABM system, but the personal friendship that he forged with Mikhail Gorbachev allowed the two men to come to essential terms on the reduction of strategic nuclear weapons and the elimination of intermediate range nuclear weapons which were the most destabilizing class of weapons in the European theater. The success that Gorbachev could claim in getting the Americans to agree to Soviet proposals while at the same time effecting a substantial reduction in launchers, mutual inspection of each others remaining arsenals, and overall liberalization of relations between NATO and the Warsaw Pact gave Gorbachev even more suction with the Politburo and further marginalized the remaining hardline elements agitating for expanded weapons development and testing. This allowed Gorbachev to fulfill the promise so hoped for by Khrushchev’s attempted reforms and liberalization that were undermined following the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Stranger