The remarks he made this morning were pretty awesome, considering that he had just a few hours to prepare them. They also showed the best way to play this - the award isn’t for him, but for the process and for America’s leadership (again, at last) in the process.
But just to follow-up, he cannot decline. There is no point to it.
Justin Morneau still has his MVP Award, in spite of the fact that lots of people who don’t give the award, myself included, think he didn’t deserve it. Morneau was at best the third-best candidate that year by my criteria, but the people who actually give the award set the criteria for the award, and by that criteria, Morneau was deserving.
For Obama to say that he knows better than the Nobel Prize Committee what criteria are relevant to the awarding of the Peace Prize would be arrogant and stupid, and he is certainly not the latter and is, at minimum, savvy enough to avoid appearing to be the former.
I am proud that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. The only requirement for an individual to receive the award is that he or she is still living (and the cynic in me thinks that may have not been a small consideration in naming him so early). Nor are there any eligibility requirements to receive a nomination. It only requires one person to have placed his name in the hat, and I have not seen any news on what the discussion was or how close the voting was. He may have been the favorite or the compromise choice. Who knows? It is surprising that he won, but not out of character by the committee.
The award has generally been bestowed for either signing or negotiating a major peace accord, such as Roosevelt, Kissinger, Arafat and others; as a lifetime achievement award, as with Albert Schweitzer, Mother Teresa and Jimmy Carter among others; in recognition of an organization that works toward world peace like Amnesty International, the International Red Cross, Médecins Sans Frontières and several others; and also a symbol of protest and hope.
The Dalai Lama was awarded in good measure as a criticism of China after Tiananmen Square. Shirin Ebadi of Iran seems to have been awarded both as a criticism of Bush and to give support to Khatami and other moderates in Iran even though her own work was slim towards ‘world peace’. Several others received awards not in recognition of past efforts but to encourage future performance such as with Lech Walesa and Desmond Tutu. Neither had accomplished much politically when they received the awards. But receiving it did help them, and though neither was perfect for having it, but it does come with a high expectation from the Committee that one should live up to the award. I would place Obama in this last category.
I do think too many people discount just how important merely attaining the office of the President is, as Biffy notes, (and the previous incumbents had lowered the bar tremendously) and not just anyone could do so. It took someone of Obama’s intelligence and wisdom (not to say that he is infallible, but he does have both qualities in far greater quantities than most of his colleagues) to both raise that bar higher again and then pass it as well. He still has far more potential than accomplishments, (but also has had far greater burdens than most of his predecessors as well.) It is too early to judge him on his accomplishments. But it is possible to give him more momentum to achieve his potential which I think is a large reason why they bestowed the prize on him. The committee knows how much political capital comes with the prize, and I believe they figured he was the best way to spend it.
They could have given it to dissidents, activists, other world leaders, etc. And it may have had an effect, but this decision increases that effect dramatically just as shown from the posts on this board and from conversations on the news shows this morning.
The fact that this may give Glenn Beck a stroke is just an added bonus.
And all said, this may end up in the category of Gwyneth Paltrow or Cher winning Best Actress, but I doubt it.
They could always decline from awarding the prize like in the years 1914-1918, 1923, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1939-1943, 1948, 1955-1956, 1966-1967 and 1972. The condition is: “If none of the works under consideration is found to be of the importance indicated in the first paragraph, the prize money shall be reserved until the following year. If, even then, the prize cannot be awarded, the amount shall be added to the Foundation’s restricted funds.”.
It definitely looks political, they should have at least waited till he failed to fix the Israel-Palestine thing before they gave him it, or at least till he was associated with some kind of world peace-type thing somewhere.
And this is an American President we’re talking about. Being “less aggressive than George W Bush” should not be the standard by which the Nobel is awarded. They now have to hope he goes potentially another seven plus years without invading anybody, an almost impossible-to-imagine scenario for a US President.
Condemnation from the Taliban? Or from Rush? I think you strongly underestimate the disdain with which Bush and the Fox News crowd are viewed from the rest of the world.
I think they should have waited for a few years, but, given that they didn’t, it would have nice if for once the right said something like this being an honor for the country. Or at least they should STFU.
This is supposed to be a list of some who were passed over. But, I read in this thread that the list is sealed for a number of years? Don’t know if it’s accurate…
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/10/meet_the_people_who_were_passe.asp
Rage? LUaghter.
Read the quote more carefully.
They are not saying Republicans are throwing their lot in with terrorists. They are saying they are joining terrorists as among the groups officially attacking the president on this issue.
Nuance is generally lost on the far right though so I shouldn’t expect them to get it I guess.
Obama’s own comments were pretty impressive. It’s a no win situation for him, so him saying he doesn’t feel he deserves it, but will “accept it as a call to action” is about the best way he can play it. Nobody can piss on that.
NOBODY expects the Spammish Inquisition!
That’s all good and dandy, but I just can’t believe that there aren’t any other people more deserving, through entire lifetimes dedicated to peace and care for humanity, than Obama.
He doesn’t really need the clout the prize brings to achieve his goals or further his vision. Like for example Muhammad Yunus, winner of the economics Nobel Prize. Undoubtly for a man like him the prize meant more exposure to his work and the opportunity to expand and spread his work.
People, right now are living and dying to achive peace, human rights and freedom; unrecognized, forgotten people that don’t make the headlines which is preciselly why they deserve the recognition a Nobel prize would bring.
Does present certain problems for us here. Mostly, “Nobel Peace Prize Winner President Barack Obama” is just too damn long, we’ll probably have to go with (NPPW) Pres. Obama, which is pretty long even by itself. And when its President for Life Barack Obama, well, that’s just going to make it worse, isn’t it?
My guess is, they figured Obama for the least controversial choice, at least globally. The Colombian senator is bound up with the hot politics of Latin America right now, Alvaro Uribe’s way vs. Hugo Chavez’ way, choosing the Chinese dissident would make the Chinese government mad, don’t get me started about Zimbabwe . . . WRT Obama, there’s a general global consensus for the moment that everybody likes him, or wants to, and he should be given a chance to give peace a chance.
I think this statement from the DNC is unfair. There are plenty of non-republicans in this thread alone, including me, who responded to the announcement with “wtf?”
If the DNC really had “a pair” they would release a statement congratulating the president and pointing out the reasons for the award and totally ignore the crackpots on the right who criticize the president for getting an award he didn’t seek. This pea-shooting at the other party just drives independents away from both parties.
To be fair, laughter and apoplexy can appear similar. It’s no surprise that you mistook it.
“I believe he has done something. You guys don’t. I’m OK with that. I think he has done a lot without even trying and I suspect that is what bothers some folks.”
The nomination deadline is eight months before the announcement, with a strictly enforced deadline of Feb. 1.
Obama assumed office January 20, 2009.
I guess “without even trying” is correct !:eek:
Be nice to Scylla, he’s having a bad day. Well, year. Say something about how eloquently he weeps and gnashes his teeth. Comment on how sackcloth and ashes set off his complexion nicely. And no gloating. That’s not nice, and Obama has shown us a better way.
Uh oh, that vein in his forehead his throbbing again, better stand back, this could be it…
As a longtime Democrat, I agree that the DNC statement was peevish, snarly and over the top. It’s not going to build support for the Dems, which should be the first test of any public partisan statement, and it comes across as particularly inappropriate given that Obama just won a peace prize.
Its $1.2 million, right? The prize money?
So if 5,130 people have died in Iraq as of today according to this it would be:
$233.92 dollars a family?