Nitpick: Most of the Nobels are given out by Swedish committees, but the Peace Prze is chosen by Norwegians.
Did you even see the PowerPoint he made for the contest? And if that didn’t nab it for him, the shadowbox did.
Prediction of stances:
LIBERAL STANCE: Under Bush the world was freaking terrified of the USA, and Obama has ended that. It’s a great thing!
CONSERVATIVE STANCE: Under Bush the world was freaking terrified of the USA, and Obama has ended that. It’s a terrible thing!
This is pure awesomeness.
Do we have any proof that the DNC actually issued that statement? A Google search only shows websites talking about this statement, but I can’t find it on the DNC’s website.
Clearly, it was for him being the Messiah.
If I call myself God and tell you that in 500 years time world peace will be commonplace, can I have the money?
Oops. Page taken down, its gone to the place the candle flame goes when you blow out the candle.
Agreed, and well put. While I was very surprised about this, I also think it’s a perfectly valid reason to award the prize. I don’t have a problem with it.
Many of these choices are political. When an activist from Iran or Burma wins it, that’s a political statement about the regimes that run those countries. This is a different kind of political statement.
This isn’t just about his being not-Bush. (Do you think John McCain would have been given this award if he had been the kind of president he said he would be?) This is about Obama’s statements and actions on re-engagement diplomatically, on climate change and nuclear proliferation. They’re not concrete achievements, I agree. But I think you’re overlooking what Bush stood for: it’s not just that he invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s that he spent eight years giving the rest of the world the finger.
So the Nobel people are saying the chances for peace are better when the U.S. is involved and engaged with other countries in dealing with problems that could have worldwide effects. I’m not saying negotiations would have stopped the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs, for example, but the Bush administration’s style of dealing with these problems (“we’ll talk to you only if you agree to everything we say”) made them much worse.
I read $1.4 million. Your figure is for Iraq and Afghanistan combined, although in theory that would be the way to go if he made such a gesture. It’s a nice thought, but it’s such a small donation for such a large loss that it would probably offend a lot of people. It’s $272.90 per family for the loss of a relative. There are plenty of programs that would be helped by a donation like that, whereas $272.90 would not do anything of consequence for most of the people who got it.
Put me down for another Obama admirer who doesn’t think it is yet earned. Sure, he’s not George W. Cheney and that is wonderful news for world peace, and it will make warmongering heads burst in anger and that will be entertaining, but this is wrong.
To Obama’s credit, he has also said it is undeserved. But Mother Teresa got it for health care, so if Congress passes a good health care bill it can be deserved retroactively.
I really think that the Peace Prize Committee blew this one.
Thanks for proving my point.
My reactions, in order:
[ol]
[li]The Onion[/li][li]WTF? Bad idea: this will just emphasize how little he’s accomplished yet and validate the right’s claim that he is overrated, beyond his accomplishments, by a cultish following that’s completely out of touch with reality[/li][li]Rush Limbaugh, on his knees, hands clasped, face to heaven, mumbling thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou[/li][li]He should respectfully decline[/li][li]Maybe not decline, but his speech should be 100% about the people who SHOULD have won it[/li][li]Maybe not 100%; he should emphasize that it’s not an Oscar, for pete’s sake; it’s a hopeful encouragement toward future achievements[/li][li]It sets the bar impossibly high, but maybe that’s a good thing[/li][li]Well, now, wait a minute. The announcement of the prize included this line: “He has created a new international climate." Well, that’s not untrue. Just by virtue of not being Bush he’s helped set the stage for progress on international relations.[/li][li]Bottom line, I guess I approve: as long as the focus stays on the hope for the future inherent in Obama’s stated goals, and not on the limited accomplishments–or lack thereof–of his embryonic administration, I think it’s a valid and appropriate choice.[/li][li]Let’s just hope he doesn’t blow it.[/li][/ol]
Get someone to nominate you, and then do something to convince the Nobel Committee that you’re capable of accomplishing anything.
Has Obama called himself the Messiah? Has ANYONE called Obama the Messiah?
Well, Politico is claiming they spoke directly to and are quoting DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse. I doubt even in this day and age any news source would wholly manufacture a quote like that if it didn’t happen.
When I asked him directly his only response was “You have said so”. I asked him “Cite?” and he put some mud on my eyes, but then the Secret Service moved me away, so I honestly have no idea if he is or isn’t.
The Nobel Prize Committee did. 
Rarely in the history of the world has such a prestigious award been given for such little achievement.
I’m as big a supporter of Obama as anyone, I suppose, but this is absurd. He hasn’t done anything worthy of the spirit of the Peace Prize, and this decision further undercuts the legitimacy of the Prize, showing that it’s not about working hard to promote peace, but is purely a political reward. Fuck that.
I know I’ve ridden this into the ground recently, but when Obama is getting the Nobel, and a guy like Greg Mortenson, who has been working in Afghanistan and Pakistan for 15 years, building schools for girls in the heartland of conservative Islam, with the full support and blessings of the Islamic religious authorities, doesn’t get a nod, there is simply no validity to the Prize.
Obama already “accepted.” Here is a link to the remarks he made at about 11 this morning.
I posted about this in another thread, but he was very subdued and appeared genuinely caught off guard by the award. I think he said the right things in response.
By the way, that link goes to the Fox News WH Blog. It was the first hit I got when searching for the text of his speech. That amuses me.
This is very typical of what happens to Barack Obama. Without nary an achievement to speak of in public office (aside from winning elections, that is), he was elected to the Presidency. Without any achievement in working for peace, he gets the Nobel Peace Prize. Stupid indeed, but I’m no longer surprised. He has that effect on the gullible.
[quote=“lissener, post:209, topic:513172”]
[li]Well, now, wait a minute. The announcement of the prize included this line: “He has created a new international climate." Well, that’s not untrue. Just by virtue of not being Bush he’s helped set the stage for progress on international relations.[/li][/QUOTE]
Just by virtue of not being a Republican. As pointed out, McCain probably would not have gotten it – nor, on the terms stated above, deserved it.
Good grief…thought we dispensed with this already.
It has been pointed out that the Nobel Peace Prize is frequently given to encourage good work they approve of. If they think you are on the right path they toss the weight of the prize and some money behind you as a means to promote further actions along those lines.
It is not only about things already achieved.
Now, you may disagree with that or whatever but it is their prize to give as they see fit and not yours. They seem to think Obama’s efforts so far towards diplomacy is worth encouraging.
Like most others I think this was pushing it but I am not going to beat on Obama for it since he did nothing to seek the award. They just gave it to him.