Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

Remove all ads!

So, does this mean the there's finally an Official Aryan Day? I mean, Leif Erikson & Co must have had blond hair and blue eyes, right? And it must rile the Neo-Nazis that it was a black man that did it, right?

I'm sorry, and I may have a sick and twisted mind, but that was honestly the first thing that popped into my head when I saw this. "Hey, let's all celebrate the day some blond-haired, blue-eyed white people took someone else's lands from them!" Lmao.

Not really. He's a liberal media darling, and the Nobel Committee apparently thinks that's enough. Thus Gore. Carter at least actually earned his. His presidency may not have been stellar, but his peace efforts for years afterward definitely deserved at least a nomination.

As for Obama, I think the greatest shame is that this means any peace efforts he may make in the future will not be appropriately rewardable. I mean, he could find a real and lasting solution to the Middle East Peace Problem and what could they do, give him another Prize?

 

If he could get that done, it would be one of the greatest accomplishments of the past 2000+ yrs. Very unlikely though. It's a shame.

 

I like Barack Obama, but this is effing ridiculous. The committee just made themselves look like fools, and have further eroded their credibility. It's sad, because most people will not give Obama his due when he DOES eventually come through.

 

Is the nomination the same as the final selection? Does all the nominations count as the final selection, and they just add them all together? I am a bit baffled myself here, since some of you are giving me the impression that he was selected to receive the award after only being in office for two weeks. Another alternative may be that he had some nominations, but that his work at looking for diplomatic solutions to political problems, rather than just sending the fleet, may be something new, that snagged him the award once they made the final selection, and is causing so much conservative consternation (I mean THOSE OTHER conservatives, of course).

No, not really. He wouldn't get it regardless of what he did, from the same people who are complaining so loudly.

 

Actually, Chandos, I believe that they just nominated him in the first two weeks, and the final selections (according to T2 and the website) are in October. So they have been assessing his first 8 months... which still begs the question - what did he even do in that time to promote peace and a better international climate?

 

As, I remarked earlier, as did Tal and some others - He's not Bush....

 

Where I did NOT vote for Obama, but since he was elected, I support him in that he is the face of the US. I hope he goes on to do many great things as President. But he hasn't so far. He is trying, I'll give him credit for that. But is he really deserving of this award, not yet in my opinion. And to be honest, I think, but I don't hope, he will fall short. Too much opposition for him to overcome. But give him an A for effort!

 

Well, I have to give you a plus rep for that statement, Blades, because it shows some real maturity coming from the other side. And it is much appreciated by those who want to see the international reputation of America restored again, unlike those partisan hacks who cheered when America failed to get the Olympics, because of their dislike for Obama (even though I'm not much of a fan of them).

 

I am as "left" as they come according to the standards of this board and well, I do think it might have been better if they decided to not hand one out if they were so lacking in candidates that they chose Obama. As others have pointed out, it is a tad premature.

Must it be someone big? Couldn't they find some Amnesty worker or journalist or something? Obama getting the prize feels like they are giving it to him in advance and again as others have said, he is not Bush and he is not a completely introvert, jingoistic, scary American conservative politician who might bomb anyone looking at him funny.

 

That is quite the beneficial development in itself. By the end of his term, Bush was almost like the political version of the plague - almost no one wanted to be seen near him. Obama might not have changed much in terms of policy, but now foreign leaders can be seen with him without their PR experts having a stroke.

To be quite honest, he has been working on a lot of projects and they are quite worthy ones - but as pretty much everyone here has pointed out, they are far from done (then again, Al Gore got an award for his work on climate change, and that isn't done either). The most memorable thing in his foreign policy so far was the speech he gave in Egypt, but while impressive it has yet to have a tangible effect that I know of. I am more or less satisfied with his work so far, but there are more reasons to nominate him for the IG Nobel awards than for the real deal.

For now, congratulations to the O-man, and a free e-cookie to anyone who finds a picture of his face when he was told the news .

 

Has anyone actually refused to accept the prize? Now that would be impressive.

 

Joac, a close look at how this statement reveals that the difference is quite dramatic. This is from the party of Dick Cheney and George Bush. Of course, Steele's bleating about "human rights" and "peace" is hilarious. But other than just providing us with entertainment today, Steele unwittingly has put what his own party stands for into sharp relief with what many others in the West would like to see regarding human rights and the drive for peace.

One of the first orders Obama signed was to order the closing of Gitmo, and in fact he did it as he was just barely seated in the Oval Office of the White House. He promised to restore America's integrity on human rights and the Rule of Law, to end torture and to respect International Law as well. That of course, set off a blistering fire-storm in public from the likes of Cheney and Steele, who launched a round of interviews and op-ed pieces to attack Obama for failing to make "America Safe" and that he was on the verge "releasing terrorists onto American soil," if they were awarded their rights under the Rule of Law. We even had the strange spectacle of Cheney and many of the talking heads in the conservative media explaining to us how "water-boarding" was not really torture.

Second, he offered more transperancy in national securtiy and holding the CIA accountable for following the Law. We know how that went over, and again the Republican attack dogs used the media to attack Obama that he was "failing to protect those who were guarding our security. Men and women who put their lives on the line would be reluctant to defend America in the future if they were held accountable." Remember? It wasn't that long ago.

Third: The War in Iraq, which he promised to end within 12-16 months of taking office.

Fourth: And we cannot forget his much touted visit to the Middle East and how some in the consevative media kept referring to him as "Hussein" Obama while he was there trying to improve relations there and seek peace.

We know how all the above turned out for him. At every turn, some Republicans and some in the media fought to once again scare the hell out of Americans that Obama was not keeping America safe by changing the Bush/Cheney policies. And it worked. Obama retreated on just about every issue regarding peace and human rights. To be sure, the reasons are more complex than just republican media attack dogs and political hackery, but I'm sure smart people saw what was happening and it was obvious.

Now. Now! The same bunch of hacks are complaining that Obama does not have a good enough record on "human rights" and "peace" to be considered for the award. How funny is that? All that's implied in this, and the subtext of the results of failure, are quite obvious and it says more about the state of the American public and American politics, than it does about Obama or the people who give out the awards.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33240807/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

 

Actually, I cheered when America lost the Olympics because, well, I think Chicago's an ugly city. Rio's so much nicer-looking. Other than that, I didn't really care.

That would be impressive, and if Obama said, "No thanks, give it to me when I earn it", my opinion of him would sky-rocket. Unfortunately, I doubt it's ever happened; and for good reason. Similarly, I doubt it ever will happen.

 

Ugly? Have you ever been to Chicago? There are lot's of excellent spots to visit. I'ts huge. If you only visited on one occasion, try it again as there is no way you saw it all. Just visiting Wrigleyville alone is a great time. I hate leaving in Illinois, but that's because I live 2 hrs outside of Chi-Town. Chicago itself is a much nicer looking City then many others I have visited. The City Skyline at night is a pretty impressive sight.

 

Well, Obama did say that he didn't deserve it. Dunno if everyone says that but it was quite fitting now. I can actually see him being annoyed at the award and it's lack of timing.

 

It has to remind him of how spineless he has been regarding the Bush/Cheney Republicans, who want neither peace or care about human rights. Maybe someday, in my lifetime, the Democrats will get some backbone.

 

I was really torn about the Olympics in Chicago -- I thought I'd be cool, but didn't want to deal with the traffic. I never thought we had a real chance though -- people here were just fooling themselves. It was Rio's all the way.

 

I heard a reason against Chicago was not so much Chicago but US immigration procedures.

As an illustration: A friend of mine wanted to cross the border from Canada into the US in Buffalo a couple weeks back, when she was visiting the Niagara Falls. There was some minor problem with her passport resulting in her spending a couple hours at customs with sensible questions like: "Do you intend to commit specific crimes in the US (insert list), are you a member of a terrorist organisation or organised crime, do you want to exploit the US social system (another friend of mine once made the mistake to laugh at that one, costing him about half a day)" and the like being asked.

Reason: She entered into Canada with a temporary passport, and her biometric passport, needed to enter the US, was sent to her by mail afterwards because it took longer to make - and thus lacked Canada's immigration stamp. That aroused suspicion. They eventually let her in, but not without charging her for giving her the stamp to satisfy their demands. A nuisance.

I also heard a reason for Rio: US cable networks made the amounts of money they offered to the IOC dependent on the games taking place within US time zones. The IOC followed their instincts then.

 

Good remark Joacquin.

I saw him on TV, I really like his honesty about all this. But seriously that is not a very sensible decision given the fact he hasn't done much yet for peace.

 

And he will have a hard time doing so, in particular between Israel and the Palestinians. I think, that is in the end what the peace prize is about. It's an encouragement to move forward.

Listening to their public announcements, my gut feeling these days is that Liebermann and Netanyahu are so unwilling to yield under the Obama administration's pressure on them to make peace, that they'd rather have a third intifada to delay the matter for the time being. With Palestinians shooting at Israelis, wouldn't that be an illustration of the impossibility of peace that they like to speak of? So I expect Israeli provocations, like high profile extra-judicial killings, settlement expansion, provocations around the temple mount and the like.

In the US AIPAC and Likud affiliated groups have started campaigns to portray Obama to the American public as an enemy of Israel because of his efforts to restart peace talks and freeze settlement construction. Considering the extend to which the Israeli enterprise is US funded that's a pretty brazen thing to do.

And the Israelis have a fairly safe position to do that - if they openly defy Obama, what will he do? Cut money? Stop arms shipments? Not with AIPAC and their allies in Congress and Senate around who will support Israel no matter what they choose to do, be it in their or the US interest or not.