I supported Obama in 2008, and I still support him today, for the most part. However, I think that the Nobel Prize was one of the dumbest ever awared by the Nobel Committee, and I thought so then also.
Kinda, sorta Obama supporter here, and yes, I think it was ridiculous for Obama to have received the award, as did he from what I understand.
Thanks for the responses, they have made for an interesting read. I do have a follow up question. Several of you have stated that Obama himself didn’t think that he should have won the award. Why, if he felt that way did he accept it? Like I said in the OP, no political motivation behind the question, just curious.
It would have been seen as snubbing a generally well-respected committee and created more awkwardness all around. Accepting it was the lesser evil.
Actually we have much more reason for him to given the Prize this year than in 2009 considering his commanding the deaths of Bin Laden and Al-Awlaki and his Libyan intervention resulting in Qadaffi’s death.
Nobel Peace Prizes should go to those who make peace not those who prattle about it.
I would bet a hundred trillion dollars that they have no remorse at all, and even less embarrassment about it. Not a slam at Obama, but, do you think that people who give the award on the basis that they gave it really consider whether or not they are accountable to anybody, or should give an explanation to anybody? No way.
hh
They didn’t think Obama would be alive in October 2010 to receive an award for actually doing something. Even so, it was stupid. Not quite as bad as Kissinger, but dumb. I’m an Obama supporter, BTW.
I actually sort of agree with this in this instance.
Why not? Obama NEVER did anything to deserve any of the positions he was given. How about his tenure at law school-he was made editor of the law review-what did he do to deserve this? As a senator, what great things did he do?
I sppose he should be leigible for the “Presidential Golf Award”-he cheats less than Bill Clinton did.
Did Obama blow up the Eiffel Tower?
Maybe this is me being overly cynical and suspicious, but Obama’s selection seemed to be less about Bush and more about race; sort of a combination of “Look how far America has come, to vote for a black man” and “Isn’t this young man a credit to his race?”.
At the time, I thought it was silly that they gave it to him based on “what we *think *he’ll do in the future” (aka: “He’s not GWB”).
IIRC, at the time he got the prize I remember some people (not sure who) saying that maybe Obama’s past work on nuclear nonproliferation contributed to the decision to give him the Nobel.
Having said that, it’s kind of funny that some people might agree that he deserves it now based on what he *has *done since winning the Prize - thus retroactively showing that maybe the Nobel committee was onto something when they were confident that Obama’s future actions would justify giving it to him.
Ditto on all points & I’ll add in President Obama’s favor the withdrawal from Iraq.
I just saw a preview of the next WikiLeaks where it turns out they really meant to award the prize to Osama but there was a typo on the certificate.
Hah! I knew it! Obama=Hitler![/Glen Beck]
I agree with this. The Committee has a history of giving the prize to people who have killed a lot of people as a reward for stopping killing people (or as many people, at least). Obama’s award was undeserved at that point but at least he wasn’t a mass-murderer.
Just my WAG but firstly, when someone gives you an honour it is churlish not to accept it graciously even if you’d rather not. Refusing it would have been seen as an overt insult to the Nobel Committee.
I also suspect that he’d hoped to get one eventually for something he’d done but this was premature. However, refuse it once and they’ll never offer it again. It was an awkward position he was put in and the least worst option was to accept it modestly and then hope to do something to earn it.
He has done a few things to improve the situation he inherited. He has managed to get some of the anti-American rhetoric in the Middle East toned down a bit (in part simply by not being so openly antagonistic and not threatening to invade Iran every 12 minutes). He’s done some further work on nuclear non-proliferation. He’s stopped torture (but not, alas, closed Gitmo). He’s winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and kept US involvement in Libya to a minimum (for reasons that have less to do with peace than with a reluctance to get involved in another war we can’t afford, I suspect). It’s not a stellar record but it’s not too bad, and only time will tell whether it has made any difference.
As for nominations - even GWB was nominated. It don’t mean anything.
Maybe it was an attempt to influence obama?
You give a peace prize to the world’s most powerful man (ok, ok: perceived to be most powerful) because of supposedly what he will do. Translation: we hope you’ll be like this. Please be like this.
If so, would they be satisfied with the outcome? Well, to say too much about Obama would be off-topic but IMO he’s been as “restrained” as an american president realistically could be. The committee might still be disappointed with that though.
To flip the question around, who do folks think would have deserved it more in '09?
I wouldn’t. I say shut the whole thing down. It was a corrupt, political “reward” from the start and should never have been created.
In one of Richard Feynman’s books he mentions that he gave some thought to refusing the Nobel Prize in Physics, because he didn’t want the publicity that went with it. He changed his mind after everyone told him that refusing the prize would have given him much more attention that accepting it gracefully.