Hello All,
Full disclaimer, I am not an Obama supporter. However my lack of support isn’t the reason for the question. We all are aware that Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize based on from what I understand “what he is going to accomplish, not what he has done”. A really retarded reason for giving the award if you ask me.
Now the question is, do you think that the Nobel committee is regretting awarding him this honor. I really don’t see what he has accomplished since he has been in office to deserve the honor. I am not complaining or criticizing his lack of accomplishments, I just fail to see what he did that was worthy of such an honor. So, do you think they think they made a mistake?
You’re asking two separate questions. Do I think it was a mistake to give it? Of course. But if you look at the history of Peace Prize recipients, Obama’s not even in the top ten of the “what the hell were they thinking” list.
Do they regret giving it to him? No. Probably not. They knew what they were doing.
Well, Obama certainly seems to think it was an odd choice: “”[Energy Secretary Steven] Chu’s the right guy to do this, he’s got a Nobel prize in physics – he actually deserved his Nobel prize"
I am an Obama supporter, and I thought that awarding the Peace Prize to him was a deliberate and not-so-subtle slap in the face to George W Bush. And as far as I can tell, it’s unprecedented to award the prize pre-emptively. Most people get it after having done something worthwhile.
(BTW, to me the Peace Prize is cheapened by the fact that it was never awarded to Gandhi.)
Sorry, didn’t answer the question. No, I don’t think they regret it, because it wasn’t about him. It was about GWB.
Obama supporter here. It was an indication of the level of hate for Bush, but it sure wasn’t appropriate to award a supposedly apolitcal award. And it was a selfish move that was done without considering the embarrassment it could have for Obama. To his credit, it doesn’t appear to have affected his decision making, not that it took much effort I’m sure.
By giving it to him before he even had a chance to do anything made a mockery of the prize. as someone upthread noted, it was about GWB. Thus, the Nobel committee let the world know that they were merely a political enterprise.
I suppose one could have reasonably argued that Obama deserved it if he had actually beaten Bush in an election; the idea being that he was able to toss a warmonger out of power.
But since Bush wasn’t allowed to run for a third term under US law, there really was no legitimate rationale for giving Obama the prize.
Sure not “merely.” More like, “among others things not above fiddling in politics.” And, big whoop. I don’t see how you can claim any of the science awards have had anything to do with politics. Whereas, the peace prize always has.
This type of debate comes up in other circumstances also from time to time - notably in the Catholic Church selecting Saints and Popes. My answer is always - it’s their club, it’s their award, they can give it to whomever they choose - period. I can’t see getting worked up about it, personally. Sure it’s a widely reported prize, but at a fundamental level is it any different than an obscure prize in a closed society - say, the Australian Interior Design Award? As an outsider I don’t vote on it and there’s no inherent value in my second guessing their judgement.
Until I saw the OP, I’d honestly forgotten that president Obama had even won the award. The others roll off the tip of my tongue: Vice president Al Gore, president Jimmy Carter, president Theodore Roosevelt…but I had to think for a second about Obama.
From what I read, when president Obama was informed of the award early in the morning, he had a few choice words for the messenger. The implication (to me anyway) was that he was on the end of a particularly unfunny practical joke. Apparently, he had enough self-awareness to know that none of his accomplishments should have triggered the announcement.
Did the Committee regret it? Doubt it. Bush wasn’t exactly know for restraining Team America: World Police.
The award is normally handed out annually; come next October, last year’s winner is promptly forgotten. And of course, the Peace Prize award is based on politics. As a kid, I remember when Kissinger and Le Duc Tho won the prize for negotiating the end to the Vietnam War. Neither struck me as particularly deserving (but to his credit at least Duc refused his). And a quick reading of other winners the Dali Lama, Aung San Suu Kyi, and Carl von Ossietzky attest to the fact that the selection committee does play politics.
Yes, but a ridiculous number of people can nominate Peace Prize candidates, including “members of national assemblies, governments, and international courts of law; university chancellors, professors of social science, history, philosophy, law and theology; leaders of peace research institutes and institutes of foreign affairs; previous Nobel Peace Prize Laureates; board members of organizations that have received the Nobel Peace Prize; present and past members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; and former advisers of the Norwegian Nobel Institute.”
Heck, my father could nominate someone for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Totally. At that point, the Nobel committee, for some reason, had pretty much turned into the George W. Bush disappreciation club, and the prize was becoming the “least likely to be GWB” prize. You may remember Gore getting one, for even shadier reasons. Then Obama got his, and if the fallout hadn’t been so huge, Bill Clinton would have been given the next one. I actually had money on him. Unfortunately, the committee got their act together.
Actually, with his work on the Clinton Global Initiative, Bill Clinton might be a legitimate candidate. Certainly more so than Obama in his first year in office.