The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

obama

So not kidding.

Discuss.

***Update***

This seems like a good time to add a new tag but an old phrase for the blog: malkinfreude. Also added to the lexicon. Killed the lexicon; see above.

338 replies
  1. 1
    salparadise says:

    Holy crap, the wingnuts are going to explode.

  2. 2
    RedKitten says:

    My kingdom to have seen the faces of Beck, Malkin et al when they heard the news…

  3. 3
    Justbetty says:

    Boy, are some on the right going to have to change their underwear!

  4. 4
    Lee from NC says:

    OK, not gonna go over well, I think, but…really? I mean, he’s better than Bush, but what exactly has he done or accomplished to get this? Is NOT preemptively bombing Pakistan or some godforsaken island enough to win the Peace Prize now?

    Don’t get me wrong, I like Obama. I voted for him. I’m as left wing as you can be, but this seems premature to me.

  5. 5

    I think it’s premature as well, but OMG if this doesn’t bring on the wingularity, then nothing will…

  6. 6
    JK says:

    Very good article in Foreign Policy magazine on 7 worthy candidates who never won the Nobel Peace Prize

    Mohandas Gandhi, Eleanor Roosevelt, Vaclav Havel, Ken Saro-Wiwa, Sari Nusseibeh, Corazon Aquino, and Liu Xiaobo

    h/t http://www.foreignpolicy.com/a....._also_rans

  7. 7
    wrb says:

    ooooooohhhh

    The spittle is gonna be flying and the veins bulging at The National Review and The Weekly Standard.

    What fun.

    A bit premature, but maybe it will achieve their apparent purpose of helping push along the stuff he’s trying to do.

    A Noble for a change in attitude I guess.

    And ending US torture and bringing us back under the rule of law are real accomplishments.

  8. 8
    mistermix says:

    New Beck, Limbaugh, et. al. talking points:

    1. Nobel peace prize isn’t that important.

    2. Obama didn’t deserve this great honor.

    Lather, rinse, repeat.

  9. 9
    Baseballgirl says:

    As much as I love the man, my first instinct is to say “for what”?

    However, after reading the reasoning of the Nobel committee and having a better idea of what they’re trying to do, I understand. Their goal is to encourage and influence future action. It’s not a lifetime achievement award. They want to give it to someone where the award itself will give them the prestige and credibility to accomplish their ultimate goals.

    Expect Glenn, Sean and Rush to absolutely frothing today.

  10. 10
    RedKitten says:

    @Lee from NC: Yeah, the consensus on the part of our journalists seems to be that it’s more for his approach than his actions. Bit of a gamble on the part of the Nobel committee, but hopefully he’ll live up to it.

  11. 11
    Zzyzx says:

    I’m definitely torn between, “Where did THAT come from?” and wanting to read Red States and Rapture Ready to watch them freak.

  12. 12
    fbeuks says:

    I’m a pretty big fan of Obama, and after Bush he really has made extraordinary efforts to have the US play nicely with the rest of the world. Mending fences and all that. But honestly, I’m kind of shocked by this. Most Peace Prize winners, you can point to specific achievements or events or projects that they’ve been involved in. I don’t see that *yet* with Obama.

    He seems to have won the prize for not being George W. Bush. It’s just a weird choice. And is going to be the major piece of ammunition for mockery of Obama, which is in itself bizarre.

    Clearly, this is excellent news for John McCain.

  13. 13
    Napoleon says:

    As I predicted in the last thread:

    1) this will be the most fun day ever on the internet for those of us that lean to the progressive side of the ledger, and,

    2) this is going to cause the Village to revel themselves even more then usual for how absolutely vapid they are.

  14. 14
    SenyorDave says:

    I like Obama, but I don’t get this one. I can only surmise that his biggest accomplishment that got him the prize is not being George W Bush.

    If Chicago not winning the Olympics was a cause for celebration at the offices of the Weekly Standard, I guess this must be cause for some serious wrist-slashing.

  15. 15
    JK says:

    @Tattoosydney:

    If this doesn’t bring on the wingularity

    Your wish has been granted. Joe Scarborough, who’s now being attacked by Rush Limbaugh for his comments about Obama’s efforts to get the Olympic Games, was sputtering and spinning his wheels this morning. Clueless Joe was whining “not fair, not fair”, Ronald Reagan and George Bush should have won the Nobel Peace Prize instead. Mark the douchebag Halperin prdicted that Obama will turn down the award.

    If Scarborough and Halperin can get this unhinged, imagine how full fledged nutjobs like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Lou Dobbs will react.

  16. 16
    Brandon says:

    Peak wingnut will arrive in 3, 2, 1 …

  17. 17
    media browski says:

    Baseball girl has it: the Committee chose him to further his goals of int. cooperation and nuke reduction, not b/c he has already accomplished them.

    Wingnuts are saying that *he* delegitimizes the prize. He really drives them to crazypantstown.

    As for me, I’m unzipping my pants and wearing my balls on the outside today.

  18. 18
    Dave L says:

    I predict war between Norway and Denmark.

    There’s no other way to determine what the world really thinks of Obama.

  19. 19
    donovong says:

    Of course, in order to make sure we get reaction from everyone who matters, CNN’s John King will have as his guest on his natterbob show this Sunday none other than…President John McCain!!

  20. 20
    Brandon says:

    On a more serious note, I think they just wanted to hear his acceptance speech in Oslo.

  21. 21
    Herb says:

    Lee, no offense, bud, but are you on the Nobel committee? No? Then who cares if you think it’s premature? Everyone’s entitled to an opinion, of course, but if you’re not the one handing out the Nobel Peace Prize, then you have no say.

    I personally think that Mickey Rourke should have won the Academy Award last year, but I’m not a member, so my opinion is largely irrelevant.

    Why is it so hard for people to acknowledge their opinions are irrelevant? Most of the time…that’s just how it is.

  22. 22
    Hunter Gathers says:

    The nuclear weapons reduction deal he cut with the Russians is a much, much bigger deal than the dunderheads in the press give him credit for.

  23. 23
    Breezeblock says:

    Actually, will this bother the Reichtards that much? I mean, since when did they give a feck about peace??

  24. 24
    SGEW says:

    So as near as I can figure, he got the prize because:

    1) He’s not Bush. Ok, fair enough.

    2) The Cairo speech.

    3) The UN speech.

    4) Moving towards multilateral engagement, re: Russia, Iran, N. Korea, Israel/Palestine, China, etc. N.B.: Has not actually done anything substantive yet (i.e., no treaties have been ratified, no agreements have been implemented, etc.).

    5) The Nobel committee wanted to use their influence to push Obama (and the American polity, I suppose) towards a more peaceful agenda – the idea would be that, since he’s a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, he (and we) will be less likely to engage in unilateral aggression and/or general assholery out of sheer ironic disincentive. Think Arafat/Kissinger.

    Good reasons, maybe. Justified even (perhaps). But too soon! Too soon!

  25. 25
    J. says:

    Wow, they give out prizes for not being George W. Bush. Who knew?

    I’m still an Obama fan but WTF?! Is this because he invited his mother-in-law to live with him — and hasn’t killed her yet? I guess that kinda merits a peace prize.

  26. 26
    Michael #2 says:

    Everyone better strap on their helmets. The Wingularity is NIGH!!!

  27. 27
    The Saff says:

    Wasn’t there a poll that came out this week that said the U.S. jumped to first in the world as being the most admired (or something like that)? And that the pollsters surmised that it was primarily because we elected Barack Obama president. I can live with that.

    I think the award is more for the direction the president is trying to steer U.S. foreign policy and his goal of trying to make the world a safer/better place for everybody.

    I’m sure the vitrol from the right today will be particularly ugly. I look forward to their collective heads exploding over the news.

  28. 28
    Jack says:

    Similar sentiments, but as funny as the Wingularity might be, this is bad news for Obama. He’s got a Really Undeserved and Premature But At Least You’re Not Dubya Award Peace Prize as we get ready to up the ante in Afghanistan.

    Not so smart, Nobel Committee.

  29. 29
    dr. bloor says:

    Let’s hope Dear Liz is in close proximity when Dick Cheney reacts to the news by shooting someone in the face.

  30. 30
    David says:

    Some freeper comments:

    “It’s hard to believe that so many people in the world can be mistaken about him.”

    and

    “Why are the Swedes meddling in our politics?”

  31. 31
    damn good mr. jam says:

    How can he win the peace prize after killing that fly?

  32. 32
    wrb says:

    I wonder to what extent all the celebrating among the wingnuts over the Olympic decision- particularly their silly claims that he wasn’t respected overseas- prodded the Nobel committee.

    Sometimes it seems that everything they do backfires.

  33. 33
    Balconesfault says:

    @salparadise: I think the whole point of awarding Obama the prize might have been to see wingnut heads explode.

    Who’d have expected the Nobel committee to be trolls?

  34. 34
    Tim F. says:

    @SGEW: My wife and I agree that #5 might be the most important point here. Obama will have to govern like Nelson Mandela or else drown in irony.

  35. 35
    SGEW says:

    @The Saff:

    Poll here.

    “What’s really remarkable is that in all my years studying national reputation, I have never seen any country experience such a dramatic change in its standing as we see for the United States in 2009,” explains Simon Anholt, NBI founder and an independent advisor to over a dozen national governments around the world . . . . “The results suggest that the new U.S. administration has been well received abroad and the American electorate’s decision to vote in President Obama has given the United States the status of the world’s most admired country.”

  36. 36
    JK says:

    @donovong:

    CNN’s John King will have as his guest on his natterbob show this Sunday none other than…President John McCain

    This Sunday, John McCain will do the Full Ginsberg. Every show will want to have Johnny Mac on this weekend as a consolation prize for Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

  37. 37
    Ash Can says:

    Like I said on the previous thread, premature? And how this is premature. That’s what makes this such a statement.

    There’s always a sense of inevitability about the NPP, or at least a lack of surprise. I think this is the Nobel Committee’s nice, polite way of giving racists and right-nutwingers everywhere a good, swift biff in the kisser.

  38. 38
    NickM says:

    Yeah, the Olympics going to Rio really was a slap in Obama’s face.

    Heh heh heh.

  39. 39
    cincyanon says:

    How dare the Nobel committee deny the offices of the National Review to patriotically snicker and cheer at a purported failure of the president!

  40. 40
    MattF says:

    Well, the wingers will explode, but it actually adds some weight to the US position in the mideast diplomacy game– so I’m for it. And, yeah, Tee Hee.

    And not only that– Barack can now pay Ayers the royalties for all those books and speeches… and hey, SGEW, add to the list– first Muslim, Kenyan-born President of the US.

  41. 41
    JK says:

    @SGEW:

    So as near as I can figure, Obama got the prize because

    It was the White House Beer Summit that clinched it.

  42. 42
    mary says:

    @mistermix: I don’t think those talking points are all that new. The right was pretty dismissive of the Prize after Al Gore won it.

  43. 43
    Jack says:

    @Tim F.:

    This.

    Plus, “Prague, Czech Republic (AP) Nobel Peace Prize Winner, President Obama, met with Taliban leaders in Prague, throughout the winter of 2011, as negotiations bogged down over the return of American prisoners of war and the intense American bombing campaign…”

  44. 44
    IndieTarheel says:

    @damn good mr. jam:

    How can he win the peace prize after killing that fly?

    WIN.

  45. 45
    Rommie says:

    I think you also have to take the view from outside the US. To us, it’s a bit of an “uh, OK?” but from places like Europe it’s “THANK GOD he’s the US President.” It’s as much an award to the US voters as BO himself. They also make no bones about giving the award to help influence future events – if it’s really gonna be that much of an anchor, the winner can always decline the award. Somehow I think Mr. MUP can turn this to his advantage.

  46. 46
    Brandon says:

    I don’t understand how this is bad for Obama. But I guess if you believe that, then this must be Good News for Hillary Clinton John McCain, or something.

  47. 47
    IndieTarheel says:

    @Ash Can:

    I think this is the Nobel Committee’s nice, polite way of giving racists and right-nutwingers everywhere a good, swift biff in the -kisser- junk.

    Fixified.

  48. 48
    DaddyJ says:

    Yeah, it does seem more like a “we’re so glad you’re not Unilateral Boy” award than anything else. But if you look at it from the Nobel Committee’s goal of wanting to encourage diplomatic solutions to conflicts, it makes some sense. I always felt that our former leader’s behavior was not just bad in itself, it was bad in that — far from bullying other nations into acting nice — it promoted trash-talking belligerence, military adventurism and arms races as acceptable international behavior. Still, I’d have preferred such an award to be made on the basis of a concrete accomplishment, not just a lack of contempt for diplomacy.

  49. 49
    Third Eye Open says:

    Wow, I just don’t know what to say. I applaud him, but … wow!

    More ammo for the troglodytes who really do see him as the Black Jimmy Carter. My only regret is that I do not have the time today to collect, and then bathe in the collective tears of Michelle Bachman and Chuck Norris.

    Obama should have a replica Nobel made to replace all the hood ornaments for every Presidential vehicle.

  50. 50
    Jack says:

    @Brandon:

    He wins by declining. That would be a brilliant trope.

  51. 51
    MikeJ says:

    I believe the message is, “see what happens when you don’t act like a dick?”

  52. 52
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    Agree wth Ash Can. I don’t think this was laziness or sloppiness or emotion-of-the-moment driving the Committee. I think it was a deliberate, calculated (and unanimous, let us not forget) decision in part to give him extra international chops and in part to inspire and prod him in equal measure. The winger response is just a lagniappe. With gravy.

  53. 53
    The Saff says:

    @SGEW: Thanks. I was too lazy to find the link. I think I read it at the Great Orange Satan.

  54. 54

    @mistermix:

    New Beck, Limbaugh, et. al. talking points:
    1. Nobel peace prize isn’t that important.
    2. Obama didn’t deserve this great honor.
    Lather, rinse, repeat.

    3. Noble peace prize = Order of Lenin

    Lather, rinse, repeat.

  55. 55
    camchuck says:

    Any guesses on which wingnut claims Soros is responsible for Obama’s Nobel Prize?

  56. 56
    Mjaum says:

    @David

    Swedes? What swedes? The Nobel *peace* prize is awarded by *Norway*. Meh! (The swedes got the other ones.)

    ‘Course, if that’ll keep the wingnuts focused on Sweden, I guess we norwegians can live with that…

  57. 57
    Tokyokie says:

    Dave L

    I predict war between Norway and Denmark.

    There’s no other way to determine what the world really thinks of Obama.

    Pffft. Norway and Denmark have always gotten along famously. Which is not to say they wouldn’t join forces and declare war on Sweden.

    Balconesfault

    Who’d have expected the Nobel committee to be trolls?

    Well, I think trolls do have their origin in Nordic folklore……

  58. 58
    max says:

    My expectation is that people (right-wing persons, even) will laugh at this.

    max
    [‘Mother of All Grade Inflations.’]

  59. 59
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @Mary #42

    Even earlier than that. Limbaugh for one was simply vicious when Carter won in 2002.

  60. 60
    JK says:

    @camchuck:

    Any guesses on which wingnut claims Soros is responsible for Obama’s Nobel Prize?

    Bill O’Reilly

  61. 61
    MattF says:

    It’s been claimed (somewheres on the interwebs) that the deadline for nominations was Feb. 1. If true, then the prize was given entirely for not being George Bush. I’d say put it in escrow.

  62. 62
    Keith G says:

    First, congrats Mr. President. I am so proud.

    Back from my daily walk to market. Left the radio at home so I could process the news. What is striking to me is the shift in mentality between Europe and us.

    Growing up in the 60s, America was hopeful and forward-looking; Europe was cynical and emotionally wounded. Listening to the citation and world wide responses, I could not help but notice the signs of change. In Europe the commentaries are about possibilities, about grasping opportunities, and about moving ahead. Here, the MSM is lingering in a bog of cynicism, battling to see who can deliver the news with the most dubious tone of voice. Some saying this is balanced out by Obama’s defeat last week at the IOC (Obama’s defeat – wtf?).

    I wouldn’t expect a national holiday, but being an American these days is starting to be a bit of a bummer.

  63. 63
    SpotWeld says:

    I don’t there will be that much wingnut outrage.
    If anything this will just support thier previous screed that came up when Al Gore won.

  64. 64

    Could it be that the Nobel committee was bored and wanted some entertainment from that performance art group, Fox News?

  65. 65
    valdivia says:

    I am actually sort of surprised by how many people on this thread seem to believe they know why a Peace Prize should be given. My two cents, for whatever they are worth–

    Glad that Obama got it. This shows that the ‘international community’ is not wholly composed of the IOC and that his global efforts to rebrand the US and to get us out of the 8 years death spiral from Bush are recognized and appreciated.

    I think a lot of us, as much as we hated what Bush was doing to our country, did not see how the outside world really saw us. This award seems to make the point that there is *much* value in having a US President who sees the diplomacy as the primary tool in his global political toolbox. I also think that while a lot of the people on the left think Obama is a turncoat that has not accomplished anything and breaks all his promises, the world sees something else. They see what he has achieved and is trying to achieve and wants to recognize it. As someone mentioned above the Russia nuclear issue is very important to other countries and here people just yawn when they hear he is trying to reduce the nuclear arsenals.

    I personally think its great someone is saying–thank you for putting the wheels in motion to close Guantanamo, thank you for returning the US to being a member of the world community in good standing. This is what this is, because I think it is clear to the rest of the world, after this summer and the hitler comparisons, that parts of this country are insane and maybe a lot of people have bought into that and need a corrective.

    Maybe I am just a naive Obamaniac but I am happy for him and for the US today.

  66. 66
    me says:

    Didn’t the antichrist guy from “Left Behind” win the Nobel Peace Prize”?</freeper>

  67. 67
    Tokyokie says:

    Mjaum,

    Shhh. You’ll only confuse them. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, what’s the difference? They’re all cold.

  68. 68
    Tokyokie says:

    Mjaum,

    Shhh. You’ll only confuse them. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, what’s the difference? They’re all cold.

  69. 69
    me says:

    Why the fuck can I not put angle brackets in my post even with html escapes? Fucking WordPress!

  70. 70
    Parole Officer Burke says:

    Obama’s the commander-in-chief of the largest military organization in the history of the world; a military that’s currently engaged in two hot wars, and kills X number of human beings per year.

    Peace != War.

    Just sayin’.

    [But, as everyone knows, they also gave one to Henry “Thank You For Not Killing All Of Us” Kissinger. So we’ve already jumped that shark.]

  71. 71
  72. 72
    moe99 says:

    Check out the WAPO poll on the matter where 49% approve and 51% disapprove of his selection (and vote while you are there too!).

    I’ve never seen such a misleading bar graph. 49% looks more like 25% while 51% looks like 75%.

    http://views.washingtonpost.co.....id=topnews

    Frakkin idiots.

  73. 73
    soonergrunt says:

    Just toured some of the wingnut sites–no links, find ’em yourself.

    They’re all loosing their shit.

    It’s fun to watch.

  74. 74
    Legalize says:

    Otherwise known as the “Thank-Christ-they-didn’t-Elect-McPalin” Award.

  75. 75
    Brandon says:

    @Jack

    He wins by declining. That would be a brilliant trope.

    So let me get this straight, you are seriously advocating that President Obama should take the advice of Mark Halperin?

  76. 76
    JK says:

    Most entertaining wingnut reaction

    Jules Crittenden:

    The big question is, who nominated him. Vladimir Putin, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Mullah Omar? Hang on, he hasn’t actually accomplished any peace, or much else yet, though he has had several schools named after him and has promoted accord to the extent schoolchildren weren’t pelting each other with spitballs while they were singing about him… It also makes up for the gross slight to Neville Chamberlain in 1938.

    http://www.julescrittenden.com.....our-time-3

  77. 77
    Victory says:

    Peace has a well known Liberal Bias.

  78. 78
    Brandon says:

    Having achieved this honor, President Obama can continue working to obtain that honorary degree Arizona State University refused to award him.

  79. 79
    Seanly says:

    I’m surprised at the choice, but the rationale makes sense.

    Unfortunately, I don’t think we’ll see too many wingnut head explosions. Since this is Calvinball, the rules will change to say the NPP doesn’t matter, this is a bad thing for Obama, it proves he’s a commie, yadda yadda.

    But behind doors, I think there will be a great wailing and nashing of teeth by elected Republicans.

  80. 80
    jwb says:

    @Lee from NC: “Don’t get me wrong, I like Obama. I voted for him. I’m as left wing as you can be, but this seems premature to me.”

    I don’t know, I sort of took this as the Nobel committee’s way of saying back to the wingnuts that the rest of the world does not believe that Obama is Hitler. I mean, I do believe that a lot of the world thinks a good portion of this great country of ours is seriously unhinged—not really what you want from the last remaining superpower—and they want to promote the sane faction as much as they can. Whether in fact an award like this might prove to be counterproductive to that goal is certainly a possibility, but the committee must have felt that it was worth the risk.

  81. 81
    ironranger says:

    I slept in & when my husband told me this am that the R’s were going to have a very rough day today, I had no idea what he meant. I was very surprised that Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize. He was laughing about the Morning Joe crew reaction. He thought there was a noticeable pause before they girded their loins to throw out names of others who should have been in the running. Going to see if msnbc has the video of that up yet.

  82. 82
    JM says:

    Most entertaining wingnut reaction
    Jules Crittenden:

    Who?

  83. 83
    MazeDancer says:

    @Brandon:

    Maybe the speech is what they want. Really. If they’re looking to back a future game-changer, instead of reward a lifetime achiever, maybe they want to change the Presentation game, too.

    As absurd as it may sound, maybe they want some sound bites. Some global rallying cries. (T-shirts? DVDS?). Maybe they want a worldwide come together moment where we can imagine the world will live as one. (Happy Birthday, John Lennon.) Which starts with half the world watching Obama at the same time. And the other half hitting the web for the replay.

    Which the “premature” reaction is legitimate, the Committee’s “rebranding” of the Prize, as future oriented, might mean they’re going to rebrand, too. Go interactive and modern.

  84. 84
    valdivia says:

    @Keith G:

    This.

    And also Ash Can I totally agree.

    Again i have to say I cannot get over the fact that anyone here thinks is bad for Obama, that he should refuse it and that he actually should have never gotten it. If the deadline was Feb I think the order to close Guatanamo, which was signed on Jan 21st is pretty good indication that he was going to be a very big change from what came before. I repeat–where a lot of people here see lack of progress and failure and Bush Light, Europe and the rest of the world see the change.

  85. 85
    John PM says:

    You know what this means … 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner William Jefferson Clinton … Who during his acceptance speech will skull f-ck Newt Gingrich.

    I think I am going to print out several dozen copies of the announement and plaster the office of the resident wingnut at my firm.

  86. 86
    BC says:

    I, for one, take this as proof that Obama is the Anti-
    Christ.

  87. 87
    Jack says:

    @Brandon:

    I could care less who gave him advice, deserved or undeserved, solicited or unsolicited. I – just me, not following anyone else – think it would be a brilliant trope.

  88. 88
    kay says:

    @SpotWeld:

    I don’t think they can top the Gore outrage. I was amazed at how vitriolic that was, all those years after 2000, a battle they WON, by the way, but I have been wrong before.

    Do you have a deep and eternal burning loathing for Bob Dole? I don’t. I don’t care what he does, or gets, or says.

    They never hold anything back, you know, in case something more INCREDIBLY OFFENSIVE comes along.

  89. 89
    Sam says:

    I think the biggest misconception is to believe the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded on inherently different grounds than say the Academy Awards or Homecoming Queen.

    It’s an old, old truism that awards based on subjective criteria say much more about the people giving them than the people receiving them.

    What this mostly says to me is theat the people giving the award have an absurdly inflated sense of self. Can any rational person think this will make Obama more of a “peacemaker” or the people with whom he would need to arrange peace more acquiescent to him?

    I also find the “premature” description amusing. Even the Academy Awards aren’t handed out before the movies are made on the premise the winners will be motivated to make better movies and live up to the award. “Premature” is not a synonym for baseless.

    It’s been a bad couple of weeks for the “elites.”

  90. 90
    J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford says:

    @me:

    Didn’t the antichrist guy from “Left Behind” win the Nobel Peace Prize”?

    No, Nicolae Carpathia didn’t win the Nobel Prize in the book. Dr. Chaim Rosenzweig, a character based on Norman Borlaug, was the Nobel Prize winner so impressed with the Romanian anti-Christ.

  91. 91
    Warren Terra says:

    I love Obama. He’s a superb human being and could be a great President. I agree with the committee’s praise. But he hasn’t actually accomplished much peace (yet?). He still runs 2 wars. It’s too soon.

  92. 92
    ironranger says:

    @moe99:
    You’re not kidding about that bar. I’m speechless.

  93. 93

    My first instinct was that it was premature as well. However, after reading the reasons the committee gave for bestowing it upon him and reading the comments here, I think I can see the logic of giving it to him as an encouragement to live up to it. In addition, he HAS changed the global outlook on the US, and in a relatively short amount of time.

    Congratulations, Mr. President. This is a big honor, indeed. Use your newfound acclaim wisely.

    P.S. As for the exploding rightwingnutters, eh. I’m getting inured to their over-the-top faux overreaction.

  94. 94
    Sanka says:

    …but this seems premature to me.

    And how.

    Now that President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize after being in the office for less than 9 months, for bringing peace to the world, would it be too much to acknowledge that the President can take ownership of the war in Af-Pak and the economy? Or are these still going to be Bush’s fault? Too early to take responsibility but never too early to accept the prize, I guess.

  95. 95
    Janet Strange says:

    @moe99:

    Check out the WAPO poll on the matter where 49% approve and 51% disapprove of his selection . . . I’ve never seen such a misleading bar graph. 49% looks more like 25% while 51% looks like 75%.

    It’s worse now. I just went over to vote and the tally (at the moment) is 50/50 yes/no – and the 50% no bar is twice as long as the 50% yes bar.

  96. 96
    Moonbatting Average says:

    Who’s down with NPP? (Every last homie!)

  97. 97
    ChrisB says:

    @JK:

    Mark the douchebag Halperin prdicted that Obama will turn down the award.

    I guess John McCain won this week too.

    Couldn’t agree more with your description of sleazy, smarmy Joe Scarborough. When you look up the word “asshole” in the dictionary, the first thing you see is an 8 1/2 x 11 picture of Joe Scarborough.

    (Reposted from the previous thread. Thought the John McCain line was clever enough to repeat.)

  98. 98
    Michael Sheridan says:

    @Legalize: I think you’ve hit on it.

    The Nobel committee is actually rewarding the entire country for not electing another soulless, warmongering, rogue leader. They couldn’t give it to all of us, so they gave it to the new HMFIC. And they’re hoping that we’ll like the honor so much that we won’t elect any more Dick Cheney clones in the foreseeable future.

    Don’t know how that will pan out in the long run, but it’s always appropriate to reward good behavior.

  99. 99
    Robin G. says:

    I have to agree with Rommie. The committee couldn’t figure out how to give the award to the American voters at large, so they gave it to the next best option. And hell, when you consider the net peace difference between a McCain and Obama presidency, who’s to say we voters don’t deserve it?

  100. 100
    SGEW says:

    Reactions from around the world:

    Mohamed ElBaradei, nobel laureate, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency:

    “In less than a year in office, he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we live in and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself. He has shown an unshakable commitment to diplomacy, mutual respect and dialogue as the best means of resolving conflicts. He has reached out across divides and made clear that he sees the world as one human family, regardless of religion, race or ethnicity.”

    Siamak Hirai, spokesperson for Afghan President Hamid Karzai:

    “We congratulate Obama for winning the Nobel [Peace Prize]. His hard work and his new vision on global relations, his will and efforts for creating friendly and good relations at global level and global peace make him the appropriate recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.”

    On the other hand, there’s this:

    Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid:

    “He has done nothing for peace in Afghanistan. He has not taken a single step for peace in Afghanistan or to make this country stable . . . . We condemn this year’s peace prize as unjust.”

    Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri:

    “Obama has a long way to go still and lots of work to do before he can deserve a reward. Obama only made promises and did not contribute any substance to world peace. And he has not done anything to ensure justice for the sake of Arab and Muslim causes.”

    Ali Akabr Javanfekr, aide to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

    “We are not upset and we hope that by receiving this prize he will start taking practical steps to remove injustice in the world.”

    (via)

  101. 101
    J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford says:

    @moe99:

    It’s tied 50%/50% right now but the “yes” bar is only 20% the size of the “no” bar.

  102. 102
    Jack says:

    @Sam:

    Even the Academy Awards aren’t handed out before the movies are made on the premise the winners will be motivated to make better movies and live up to the award.

    This.

  103. 103
    jbb says:

    @SGEW:

    My gut reaction was #5, but I also note that you completely left out all mention of Obama’s extensive work in nuclear non-proliferation/disarmament. Considering Nobel, and the NPP’s origins, I think it likely that that was a very big factor.

  104. 104
    kay says:

    @Seanly:

    Since this is Calvinball, the rules will change to say the NPP doesn’t matter, this is a bad thing for Obama, it proves he’s a commie, yadda yadda.

    I agree. By tonight, pundits and journalists will be predicting a dip in his approval rating, based on the high expectations and then the inevitable failure of Barack Obama.
    That’s a fairly common campaign theme, the wisdom and savvy of “lowering expectations” and that’s all media cover, the Permanent Campaign.

  105. 105
    Warren Terra says:

    Can we please ignore the silly “nomination deadline” stuff? It’s very easy to get nominated for the Peace Prize; every important goodie and baddie is nominated every year. The date of the vote counts.

  106. 106

    @Michael Sheridan:

    The Nobel committee is actually rewarding the entire country for not electing another soulless, warmongering, rogue leader.

    I just posted a similar comment elsewhere. I like to think I earn a piece of that award for rejecting preemptive war.

  107. 107
    Parole Officer Burke says:

    @SGEW:

    No Justice, no Peace.

  108. 108
    scav says:

    oh this is so not going to be a boring day.

  109. 109
    Chad N Freude says:

    @moe99: The first comment under that totally mystifying graph:

    radbwana wrote:
    One should not forget that it is the Swedes who give the Nobel Prizes for science, etc. Norway gives the peace prize as nothing more than a socialist political statement.
    .
    Obama getting the Nobel for his international groveling is comparable to Nevile Chamberlain having received it (which he didn’t) for signing Britain over to the Nazis with the stroke of a pen.
    .
    Such Norwegian “phoney baloney”is only taken seriously by the liberals — Chris Matthews must be having another one of those Obama tingles running up his leg.
    .
    Perhaps the President can give the prize money to his former client, ACORN.

  110. 110

    @Michael Sheridan: Hm. I like it. I think this makes sense. Even if it doesn’t, I will happily take a teeny tiny portion of the credit. Yay, us!

  111. 111
  112. 112
    Hunter Gathers says:

    Josh Marshall nails it:

    This is an odd award. You’d expect it to come later in Obama’s presidency and tied to some particular event or accomplishment. But the unmistakable message of the award is one of the consequences of a period in which the most powerful country in the world, the ‘hyper-power’ as the French have it, became the focus of destabilization and in real if limited ways lawlessness. A harsh judgment, yes. But a dark period. And Obama has begun, if fitfully and very imperfectly to many of his supporters, to steer the ship of state in a different direction. If that seems like a meager accomplishment to many of the usual Washington types it’s a profound reflection of their own enablement of the Bush era and how compromised they are by it, how much they perpetuated the belief that it was ‘normal history’ rather than dark aberration.

  113. 113
    linda says:

    so…. the taliban AND conservatives are equally appalled at obama’s winning the nobel prize.

  114. 114
    Chad N Freude says:

    @Chad N Freude: AS usual, WordPress screws up the blockquote. The entire text should be blockquoted.

  115. 115
    JK says:

    Tweet from CBS WH reporter Mark Knoller

    Should Pres. Obama accept the Nobel Prize? Should he suggest the award is premature and there might be others more deserving?

    http://twitter.com/markknoller

  116. 116
    Bender says:

    I know that you guys will pull out the popcorn and read every right blog today, but I would hope that Malkin, Hannity, et. al. will have the restraint to only comment that this proves once and for all that the once-prestigious Nobel Peace Prize has fallen so far as to become a “Participation” trophy for any lefty who antagonizes the American Right. I say I would hope — I’m not betting on it.

    Arafat, Jimmah, Al-Baradai, Gore, and now The Zero. The Nobel is now as meaningful as the Gold Glove awards.

  117. 117
    Chad N Freude says:

    @Chad N Freude: And the damn comment is in moderation!

    Got to the Post vote result graph and read the first comment. Truly awful stuff, but I suppose not as bad as what’s going on in the right-wing blogastrophe.

  118. 118
    Will says:

    Here’s where Cameron goes berserk.

  119. 119
    wilfred says:

    Maybe this will prevent a widening of the war in Afghanistan, or at least new rules of engagement that decrease the chances of blowing up wedding parties. Maybe this will call for a call for regional nuclear disarmament in the Middle East. Or maybe it will call for a general de-militarization of Homeland.

    Yeah.

    Don’t be suprised if Obama turns it down. How will it look the next time we blow up children or stand by when our proxies start wars that do so in our stead.

    In such cases, mockery will be well deserved, no?

  120. 120
    kay says:

    @Sanka:

    Obama’s been flat-out busting ass for 9 months, and he regularly takes responsibility for employment numbers. I don’t know if he “deserves” the Nobel, but I don’t get a vote, so it doesn’t matter.
    I do think it would be decent if conservatives would at last acknowledge how hard he and the people he hired work.
    That alone is a sea change. They try. They address difficult problems. They show up. They didn’t enter office with contempt and disdain for the whole notion of government.

  121. 121
    SGEW says:

    Islamic Jihad leader Khaled Al-Batsh:

    “Obama’s winning the peace prize shows these prizes are political, not governed by the principles of credibility, values and morals. Why should Obama be given a peace prize while his country owns the largest nuclear arsenal on Earth and his soldiers continue to shed innocent blood in Iraq and Afghanistan?”

    (via)

  122. 122

    My memory is going, but didn’t Henry Kissinger win the Nobel Peace Prize once? As I recall, that was the thing that caused Tom Lehrer to stop writing songs.

    But maybe this will drive Toby Keith out of show business.

  123. 123
    jenniebee says:

    This prize was clearly awarded in an attempt to reach Peak Wingnut.

  124. 124
    mrmike says:

    I believe I understand the motivation behind this award.
    I also believe that the President should decline it.

    It’s tricky, because declining could be seen as exhibiting even more ego than accepting it would. And it will almost certainly be spun that way by the WIngosphere whether he accepts it or not.

  125. 125
    Michael Sheridan says:

    OK, hands up everybody who thought Erick Erickson would be the first to “go there”:

    I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota for it, but that is the only thing I can think of for this news.

    (I’m not going to link to that RedState jerk.)

  126. 126
    Leelee for Obama says:

    @John PM:

    You know what this means … 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner William Jefferson Clinton … Who during his acceptance speech will skull f-ck Newt Gingrich

    Think there will be low price tickets so many Gingrich fuckees can attend. The hall would be much fuller for that particular speech, I’m thinkin’.

  127. 127
    SpotWeld says:

    Functionally speaking, is it even possible for someone to refuse a Nobel Peace Prize?

  128. 128
    ericvsthem says:

    Obama, I’m happy that you won that Nobel, and imma let you finish, but Ghandi was the most peace promoting brother of all time.

  129. 129
    JK says:

    @Sam:

    I think the biggest misconception is to believe the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded on inherently different grounds than say the Academy Awards

    The Norwegian Nobel Committee and the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have both fucked up royally in terms of screwing over richly deserving recipients. Everyone knows that Mohandas Gandhi should have received a Nobel Peace Prize and that Al Pacino should have received an Academy Award for The Godfather Part II.

  130. 130
    Mjaum says:

    @Spotweld

    Not without seriously pissing off Norway, no.

    (After all, the NPP-concert is pretty much the only time we get world-class stars in concert on this windy iceberg.)

  131. 131
    LoveMonkey says:

    No, it’s not too soon. The prize is not based on his presidency, but on his approach to a worldview, on his call for a shift away from the boneheaded policies of our recent history. It’s a prize awared with the future in mind, not the past.

    It will have many beneficial effects, I think, but if it accomplishes nothing more than causing the Limbaughs and Becks of the world to lose control of their bowels, then it is definitely a win for the world.

    To all the barking hyenas on the right, I say, Aw, shut the fuck up. Just shut the fuck up.

  132. 132
    scav says:

    @linda: so…. the taliban AND conservatives are equally appalled at obama’s winning the nobel prize.
    I think this is exactly why I can’t stop giggling. Major props to the Norges for pulling this off in real time and with no warning.

  133. 133
    Balconesfault says:

    @moe99:

    I’ve never seen such a misleading bar graph. 49% looks more like 25% while 51% looks like 75%.

    Even better now – both boxes say 50% … but the No box is 3x bigger than the Yes box!

    Damned liberal media…

  134. 134
    anonevent says:

    @valdivia: This.

  135. 135
  136. 136
    wilfred says:

    @mrmike:

    He could decline it by saying that he hasn’t earned it yet but will devote his Presidency to restoring the Unisted States to the status of a decent country.

    Yeah.

  137. 137
    kay says:

    @Hunter Gathers:

    I think so too. I say it a lot, so forgive me, but what media are is not biased, but deeply conventional. They want things to stay the same. They will go to great lengths to deny anything ever changes.

  138. 138
    Ravi J says:

    It’s actually an award to Americans for not having voted McCain in.

  139. 139
    Punchy says:

    Actually, he got the Nobel Piece Prize.

    They like the looks of his loins.

  140. 140
    SGEW says:

    @Bender:

    [T]he once-prestigious Nobel Peace Prize has fallen so far [it is now] a “Participation” trophy for any lefty who antagonizes the American Right.

    I would disagree. I submit that it is, rather (partly, perhaps), a “participation” trophy for any American President who participates in the international community and publicly repudiates: unilateral aggression; clinical, pathological exceptionalism; international illegality; and overt war crimes and/or crimes against humanity. The “OMG, He’s Not Bush!” award. Compare and contrast with the “Thank You For Not Killing Us All!” award, e.g., Kissinger, Henry.

    Yes, it does piss off the “American Right” (viz., [ad hominem redacted] people), but that’s just a perk, not a direct objective.

  141. 141
    shortstop says:

    “It’s hard to believe that so many people in the world can be mistaken about him.”

    Effing classic.

  142. 142
    Waynski says:

    Jebus, Sweden. Stay off our side.

  143. 143
    Michael Sheridan says:

    @SpotWeld: According to a very quick google search, Lee Duc Tho refused his share of the Peace Prize awarded to him and Kissinger because there wasn’t peace in his country yet, so it wouldn’t be an unprecedented move.

    But if Obama does refuse as many of the wingnuts are suggesting, look for the hypocritical bastards to immediately begin tying Obama to Hanoi….

  144. 144
    wilfred says:

    It’s always worth reading Glenn Greenwald, but today especially – great photos, too.

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

  145. 145
    joypog says:

    don’t you have to be living to get the prize? In any case, I agree with the several comments – I think they just wanted to hear another killer speech.

    Put me in the “love Obama, but it seems a bit premature” crowd.

  146. 146
    LoveMonkey says:

    @shortstop:

    Yes, this is worthy of Yogi Berra. Similar to Berra’s remark about a St. Louis eatery:

    “Nobody goes there any more, it’s too crowded.”

  147. 147
    Bender says:

    And Obama has begun, if fitfully and very imperfectly to many of his supporters, to steer the ship of state in a different direction. If that seems like a meager accomplishment to many of the usual Washington types it’s a profound reflection of their own enablement of the Bush era because it really, really is meager. It almost overstates the word “meager.”

    FIFY

    Marshall risks beclowning himself trying to justify this award, a risk many left commentators will no doubt be forced to take.

    Obama had to have been nominated for the award within 10 days of his Inauguration to make the deadline. I think we are all agreed that in that time period, he had done absolutely nothing to “steer the ship of state” in any direction worthy of a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize (or worthy for what it once was, at least). The short list was drafted a month later.

    I think that the only comment the Right blogs should make over the next few days is to point out how other probable nominees for the Peace Prize (of course, we don’t know who was nominated, but there were a record number, and the bar for nomination was not very high, obviously) have actually sacrificed and accomplished something — even something as trivial to the Nobel Committee as saving lives in the effort for peace! — to actually deserve it.

  148. 148
    The Saff says:

    @Michael Sheridan: Wow. Not surprising but just wow.

    And on the topic of Obama declining the award, why should he? I for one think he should accept it.

    I agree with Kay. The administration is working hard every day to clean up the multiple messes — domestic and foreign — that 8 years of Dubya left behind. I’m not saying they’ve been right on everything (I wish the stimulus bill had less tax cuts: re: Krugman in the Times today; more vocal support for the public option, doing a better job of addressing the jobs situation, etc.) but I still have hope for the direction we’re headed. Bush did horrible, horrible damage to this nation and the world.

  149. 149
    Mjaum says:

    *Baps Waynski*

    Norway gives out the NPP, blind one.

  150. 150
    SGEW says:

    By the way, it is important to note here that Bitsy still deserves votes – – >

    Even if she hasn’t won any Nobel Peace Prizes recently.

  151. 151
    Ambergris says:

    I just want to remind everyone, especially Jonah Goldberg, that Hitler was nominated for the peace prize, too – in 1938.

  152. 152
    Pasquinade says:

    Here’s a screencap of the WaPo poll at about 9:20 am Eastern time

    http://img340.imageshack.us/im.....elpoll.jpg

  153. 153
    GReynoldsCT00 says:

    I actually have to say I thought I was reading The Onion headlines and not the NYT earlier this morning. It was puzzling to find out it was real. Then total glee that the right might spontaneously combust over this. Gonna be a fun day.

  154. 154
    Hunter Gathers says:

    @kay: They poo-poo it because they were Bush’s biggest enablers. They took part in the selling of the Iraq War, and they are the biggest impediment to holding Bush/Cheney accountable for what they did.

    The slow decline of the MSM continues un-abated….

  155. 155
    dmsilev says:

    @Balconesfault: Now the Yes votes are ahead, and whatever pea-brained software the Post is using to draw their graphs has the Yes bar about 5 or 6 times bigger than the No.

    -dms

  156. 156
    valdivia says:

    The Josh Marshall quote above says it all–the media are saying he does not deserve because they do not want to recognize how much *they* were a part of the Bush enabling machine. This is a reproach of their actions as well.

  157. 157

    The Nobel Peace Prize is worthless.

    Al Gore – Awarded for Junk Science

    Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change – More junk science awards.

    Jimmy Carter – For his pacifism and weakening of the United States.

    Kofi Annan – For being the most corrupt U.N. leader.

    United Nations – For allowing atrocities all over the world while yelling at the United States for everything.

    Yasser Arafat – For efforts to create peace. HAHAHAHHAHAHAH. Yeah f’in right.

    Barack Obama – For doing absolutely nothing. For being the Statist’s Messiah.

    Point made. Case closed.

    Enough said. Point Made.

  158. 158
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    I say we blast out into orbit and nuke the lexicon. Only way to be sure.

    @Ambergris:

    I just want to remind everyone, especially Jonah Goldberg, that Hitler was nominated for the peace prize, too – in 1938

    I am absolutely goddamn positive we will be reminded by the tea bagging nutbugs on a nanosecond basis for the foreseeable future.

  159. 159
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @Skepticat #108

    The Nobel Committee is filled with *activist judges*!

  160. 160
    catclub says:

    I hope Obama asks George Bush to accept it in his place, since he has too many things on his plate to waste the time traveling to Europe.

  161. 161
    rh says:

    I demand to see the Nobel certificate.

  162. 162
    LoveMonkey says:

    Apparently the Muslim world hates the award. So today, our right wing is officially aligned with the Axis O’Weevil.

    Also, this from AP is read-worthy this morning, particularly the last line:

    Common misconceptions about the Nobel Peace Prize
    By The Associated Press (AP) – 2 hours ago

    An award that generates as much interest as the Nobel Peace Prize is bound to be surrounded by myths. Geir Lundestad, secretary of the secretive committee that awards the prize, outlines for The Associated Press some of the most common misunderstandings:

    _ Myth: The awards committee announces a shortlist of candidates.

    The committee does not release the names of any candidates and keeps records sealed for 50 years.

    _ Myth: A campaign for a particular candidate can sway the awards committee.

    A campaign could have the exact opposite effect on the fiercely independent committee, which does not want to appear influenced by public pressure.

    _ Myth: Candidates can be nominated until the last minute.

    The nomination deadline is eight months before the announcement, with a strictly enforced deadline of Feb. 1.

    _ Myth: Anyone can nominate a person or group for the Peace Prize.

    No, although Nobel statutes on who can nominate were slightly broadened in 2003. They now include former laureates; current and former members of the committee and their staff; members of national governments and legislatures; university professors of law, theology, social sciences, history and philosophy; leaders of peace research and foreign affairs institutes; and members of international courts of law.

    _ Myth: The prize can be revoked if a laureate does not live up to the standards of the peace prize.

    There are no provisions for revoking the prize.

    _ Myth: The prize can be awarded posthumously.

    The prize was award posthumously only once — in 1961, to former U.N. Secretary-General Dag Hammerskjold, after he was killed in a plane crash in Africa. The rules were amended in 1974 to prohibit posthumous prizes.

    _ Myth: The prize is awarded to recognize efforts for peace, human rights and democracy only after they have proven successful.

    More often, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments.

  163. 163
    Ben says:

    This really is the moment the “Black Jimmy Carter” tag was made for. As for the award, I’m surprised to see it come so early, but I do think taking the world’s most powerful country in a markedly less belligerent direction is a pretty big deal. They didn’t phrase the rationale for it that way, but I suspect that’s largely what it’s about.

  164. 164
    Parole Officer Burke says:

    Greenwald’s column today sounds rather similar to Khaled Al-Batsh’s reaction. Interesting.

    Note very well, please: I am not implying (nor should it be inferred!) that Glenn Greenwald supports Al-Batsh’s “policies,” nor vice versa! Rather, I am saying that Al-Batsh has a good point (as does Glenn), and that it’s a god damned shame.

  165. 165
    kay says:

    @The Saff:

    I don’t know if he should decline or accept. I do know that his administration rarely listens to the clamoring demands and daily dire predictions of the punditry, and I think that’s smart.

    Because they’re nearly always wrong, so listening to them would be silly, and, in any event, as is mentioned constantly by the same punditry, Obama has a full plate of real and pressing problems, so they’re a “distraction”.

  166. 166
    Bender says:

    I submit that it is, rather (partly, perhaps), a “participation” trophy for any American President who participates in the international community and publicly repudiates: unilateral aggression; clinical, pathological exceptionalism; international illegality; and overt war crimes and/or crimes against humanity.

    Oh, please. They should just call it the DailyKos Peace Prize if that’s how hard you have to spin “BusHitler!” for it.

  167. 167
    JMY says:

    It may be premature, but I don’t care. And why would he decline it? I’m sure he would accept it, but make note of the fact that he has a long ways to go and acknowledge others who are making a difference as well as he his. I’m pretty sure he his humbled by it. I look at this as a positive – that it could help push his agenda for global peace and prosperity. Whether it was premature or not, I won’t spoil the party and boo-hoo about him winning it like some people are. It’s a prestigious honor and I’ll leave it at that.

  168. 168
    Little Dreamer says:

    @Sanka:

    Or are these still going to be Bush’s fault?

    The man who threw the first punch (not Obama) will ALWAYS be responsible. The guy who fell asleep with his wallet left open on the table for all to rob will never be forgiven for allowing his household to go bankrupt.

    Are you feeling the need to take the heat off ol’ Georgie? Feel sorry for him, I guess, huh? Shove it.

  169. 169
    LoveMonkey says:

    Point made. Case closed.
    Enough said. Point Made.

    Be careful, you will break a rib pounding yourself on the chest like that.

  170. 170
    ET says:

    Total slap at Bush/Cheney….

    Limbuagh is going to have an on-air aneurysm, Cheney’s pacemaker is going to crap out because it can’t keep up, and all of the village is going to have an incredible freak-out. Should be fun viewing – where’s the popcorn.

  171. 171
    Jack says:

    @wilfred:

    Thanks for that post.

  172. 172
    Shell says:

    Nicolae Carpathia

    I’ve never picked up one of the ‘Left Behind’ books. Seriously, that’s the character’s name? Wow, that author has no shame.

  173. 173
    wilfred says:

    @Parole Officer Burke:

    The point is that Glenn and nearly all of the people that participate at his site supported Obama for reasons that make this award laughable. What peace?

    It’s not a shame, it’s an embarrassment.

    @kay:

    C’mon. One of those problems, ignored here as far as I can see, is whether to widen the war in Afghanistan, guaranteed to kill lots more people, innocents and soldiers alike. How does he rectify that with the Nobel? Wait! I know!!

    We are fighting for peace! Ah, that’s better.

  174. 174
    Little Dreamer says:

    @LoveMonkey:

    Axis O’Weevil.

    I nominate this term for the lexicon (but I am biased since I know that chimp personally) so can somebody else please second this request?

    Thank you. ;)

  175. 175
    Bender says:

    The Josh Marshall quote above says it all—the media are saying he does not deserve because they do not want to recognize how much they were a part of the Bush enabling machine. This is a reproach of their actions as well.

    Also because Obama hasn’t accomplished anything, especially in his first month when he made the Short List!

    Marshall’s spin is the dumbest fucking thing I’ve ever read. One wonders how he gets any oxygen with his head up there.

  176. 176
  177. 177
    PTirebiter says:

    …if it accomplishes nothing more than causing the Limbaughs and Becks of the world to lose control of their bowels, then it is definitely a win for the world.

    I’m going with LoveMonkey on this one. Perfect pitch.

  178. 178
    kay says:

    @JMY:

    Oh, declining an award is just substituting his judgment for the judgment of the people who voted for him. Not a great thing for an American President to do. This isn’t an After School Special, where the “real” winner steps up to cheers at the soccer banquet, and the music comes up. He’d be saying he knows “peace” better than the people who gave it to him.

    The response to an award is “thank you”. I don’t think it’s complicated, outside of punditry-land.

  179. 179
    georgia pig says:

    Some have hinted at it above, you have to expand your mind and think of how the world looks at us. The US is the 800-pound gorilla, the world catches a cold when we sneeze. We in the US have a tendency to think that all problems are external to the US, and the Nobel Prize is directed to figures who end conflicts, fight oppression, etc., in strife-torn places like Somalia. The rest of the world may value Obama because he was able to convince a country that had taken a very belligerent, warlike stance over the last several years to think about being part of the world community, e.g., Hope and Change over a signficant reactionary trend (Palinism). He also was at the helm of heading off a global economic meltdown. Those are both huge accomplishment that can contribute mightily to world peace. Add to this that he did this as an African American and does it at considerable personal risk (death threats up 400% in comparison to Bush). Obama built a tremendous organization and inspired a lot of folks who had lost hope. Sure, the reality is often disappointing (comprising on health care, delay in closing Guantanamo, Afghanistan, etc.), but these are legacy problems that are not easily fixed given the political realities of the US. Don’t lose sight of the accomplishments. George Bush was right in saying the being president is hard work — he just never did the work. Obama is doing the work, and the peace prize is to encourage him to keep at it.

  180. 180
    Sarcastro says:

    Apparently the Muslim world hates the award. So today, our right wing is officially aligned with the Axis O’Weevil.

    To be fair, Iraqis seem to support it.

    So against it we have Hamas, the Taliban and the Republican party while Israel and Iraq are for it.

    Marvelous!

  181. 181
    GregB says:

    Well, this only reinforces the brilliant analysis of the rightwing pundicks who crowed and cheered last week that President Obama is loathed by the world community due to the loss of the Chicago Olympic bid.

    Ah, sweeeeet Malkinfreude.

    -G

  182. 182
    GregB says:

    Well, this only reinforces the brilliant analysis of the rightwing pundicks who crowed and cheered last week that President Obama is loathed by the world community due to the loss of the Chicago Olympic bid.

    Ah, sweeeeet Malkinfreude.

    -G

  183. 183
    nepat says:

    Gobama!

  184. 184
    LoveMonkey says:

    Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which recognize completed scientific or literary accomplishment, the Nobel Peace Prize may be awarded to persons or organizations that are in the process of resolving a conflict or creating peace.

    That’s from the Wiki.

    Amazing to me that hardly anyone really understands the way the prize is awarded.

  185. 185
    Mike in NC says:

    Every show will want to have Johnny Mac on this weekend as a consolation prize for Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Obviously the commies gave B.O. this award to divert media attention from ACORNgate! It’s only appropriate that now Senator McCain be award the Medal of Freedom AND the Medal of Honor, as well as honorary appointment to the grade of Fleet Admiral.

  186. 186
    Parole Officer Burke says:

    @Bender: I’ll grant you that “clinical” and “pathological” were used for rhetorical purposes (I am not qualified to label people as such), but every other point is the majority opinion of the international community. Sorry.

    The Bush administration violated international norms of proper state behavior; because the United States of America was the principal founder and enforcer of these very same norms (e.g., don’t torture people; don’t invade nations without cause, etc.), the rest of the world found it . . . unsettling . . . that the U.S.A. could turn it’s back on the very same principles it was instrumental in instilling in the rest of the world. If the Americans were such obvious scofflaws, how can anyone make anyone else obey international law?

    This is pretty well established everywhere on earth, other than in this country’s “peculiar” “American Right” phenomenon. Or the Beltway, apparently.

    How can one not acknowledge that there is (at the very least!) a grain of truth to this statement?

  187. 187
    Napoleon says:

    @valdivia:

    I agree with you and Josh Marshell.

  188. 188
    scott says:

    This is Excellent News for John McCain

  189. 189
    Jack says:

    @kay:

    When my oldest child was selected for an award that he felt he had not earned, he declined. He absolutely did substitute his judgment for those who were offering the award. And he was right to do so.

    Because it’s his honor and dignity and self-respect at stake.

    I know it’s not so simple, when the lens is focused on the POTUS, but it doesn’t automatically follow that he should accept the award simply because it’s being offered to him.

  190. 190
    LoveMonkey says:

    @Little Dreamer:

    ooh ooh ooh ooh ahh ahh ahh ahh ooh ooh ooh ooh!

    ( scratches armpits )

  191. 191
    linda says:

    @GReynoldsCT00:

    me too…. reading wapo online and saw a tag ‘obama wins nobel peace prize’ and i honestly thought it was a snarky blog post by dana milbank and didn’t bother to read it until it had bumped up to ‘breaking news’… lol.

    awesome. and the freakin best part is the wingnut/media magpie reaction.

  192. 192
    Brandon says:

    I didn’t realize how many villagers there are in the comments. This is seriously good news for America. People like us again. Instead, people just want to throw water. Well, whatevs. I think it is funny, I think it is brilliant, I think that what anyone else outside what the Nobel committee thinks is irrelevant. And yes, he should accept.

  193. 193
    Napoleon says:

    Wow, I see up thread the NPP had brought out some of the authoritarian right wing nuts.

  194. 194
    Sasha says:

    Expect a noticeable uptick in whiplash injuries as wingnuts swing from emphatically declaring “Chicago’s failed Olympic bid is actually the world community rejecting Obama” to vigorously stating “Obama winning the Nobel Prize shows that the opinion of the world community isn’t worth listening to.”

  195. 195
    Parole Officer Burke says:

    oops. Wrong handle. [weeps at internet fail]

  196. 196
    kay says:

    @wilfred:

    I don’t know what he’s going to do in Afghanistan, Wilfred. Do you? I read your comments here, with interest, usually, so I know you object to the current policy in Afghanistan. Is that what you mean?

    On a side note, I waited for Greenwald and Company to pressure Congress to drop their ridiculous opposition to trying and (housing those convicted) from Gitmo, so Holder can do his goddamn job, and heard crickets. Holder is busting ass to clean up that legal minefield down there, and he’s making progress. He doesn’t have anywhere to house the people he tries and (perhaps) convicts. Where is Greenwald’s army on that? They can lobby the DOJ but not Congress? WTF?

    I read this week that Holder himself is lobbying Congress to move on Gitmo. Why is he out there alone? Where are the Lefty lawyers that trashed him for the last 9 months? Do we want the detainees tried, or what? They might want to give Holder a hand, pushing Senator Feinstien, and accomplishing something of real and practical import, rather than bitching incessantly.

  197. 197
    Bender says:

    I predict that Rush’s spin will be that OF COURSE the Europeans love Obama, because his disastrous economic policies will continue to destroy America’s status as the superpower, a vacuum that the now-sovereign EU will hope to fill.

    His spin should be to point to real people around the world who aren’t just celebrities, but people who actually deserve recognition (perhaps someone poor who could actually use the $1.4M!) for saving lives in the effort to promote peace. But I forget. That’s not what the Nobel Peace Prize is for! It’s for empowering someone who they hope will do something for peace in the future! I can’t believe that we have to write that sentence these days.

  198. 198
    Comrade Jake says:

    If we don’t reach peak wingnut today, we are certainly going to get very close.

  199. 199
    martha says:

    @Hunter Gathers:

    Wow. Josh wins.

  200. 200
    Napoleon says:

    @Jack:

    Turning down an award is rude and a direct slap in the face of the entity offering it IMO, which is exactly why the right wing nut cases and media want him to do it.

  201. 201
    Original Lee says:

    @valdivia: This.

    Plus, he didn’t declare war on Brazil when the IOC gave the Olympics to Rio de Janeiro. Also, too.

  202. 202
    NickM says:

    It’s nice of the trolls – some of whom look new in these parts – to bring the head asploding action right here to us. More, please.

  203. 203
    Da Bomb says:

    @valdivia: I was just telling someone the other day, that Global Community as a whole is giving him a chance and see his potential.

    Americans on the other hand, don’t feel that he hasn’t accomplished anything. Which of course isn’t true, as we both said several days ago. And as always, we have to see how things pan out. But just as you express this is an award because he’s not Bush and the whole Russian nuclear arsenal issue is big. As my fiance said when he was elected, Obama will be respected internationally but domestically he will have problems. As a society we are about instant gratification, even though the tides are changing, people don’t the change instantly, hence he’s a failure. I think this award will keep reminding him to keep his eyes on the prize.

    So I guess we are apart of a large community of Obamaniacs(in the billions).

  204. 204
    JackieBinAZ says:

    Obama should have a replica Nobel made to replace all the hood ornaments for every Presidential vehicle.

    He should get a big chain and wear it as bling.

  205. 205
    Jack says:

    @Napoleon:

    That’s a simplistic formula. It can be neither rude nor sweetly innocent, in fact. It’s not an either/or.

  206. 206
    SGEW says:

    I just had a thought. An inclination.

    The world has too much riding on Obama. On one individual. People really do think that it’s some sort of “Great Man” moment.

    But you should also note that those moments have very, very rarely worked out well in world history.

  207. 207
    FNWA says:

    You have to admire the organizational ability of ACORN to learn Norwegian and take over the NPP committee while they were busy stealing an election.

  208. 208
    Da Bomb says:

    @kay: Thank you for saying that! Thank you!

  209. 209
    Sasha says:

    And I’ll wager real money that, in the event that Obama does turn down the prize, wingnuts will be all over him for disrespecting America, slapping the world community in the face by turning down such a prestigious honor.

  210. 210
    LoveMonkey says:

    @NickM:

    Spoofs, probably. This is the only mainstream blog that has a Nobel Prize winning spoof artist on its front page.

    Buyer beware.

  211. 211

    Now that I know that one of the very reasons for giving the award is to encourage the participant to work harder for peace, I am even more comfortable with Obama receiving it (not that I ever thought he should decline it).

    @SGEW: I actually agree with you here. It’s gonna take a whole lot more than Obama to fix the mess we’re in.

  212. 212
    JK says:

    By my informal count, 4 members of the MSM – Mickey Kaus, Mark Halperin, Mark Knoller, and George Packer – are calling for Obama to turn down the Nobel Peace Prize. Has anyone seen any other MSM members making this request?

    George Packer’s comments:

    President Obama should thank the Nobel committee and ask them to hold on to the Peace Prize for a couple more years. The prize should be awarded for achievement, not aspiration, and so far Obama’s main achievement has been getting elected President, which is in a different category. He shouldn’t contribute to the unfair accusation that he is all talk by accepting an award based on speeches he gave in Berlin, Prague, and Cairo. Europeans’ relief in seeing the last of George W. Bush and their adoration of Obama are entirely understandable, but in the U.S. we’ve moved on from November 4, 2008, and these days Obama is—in a way that’s both inevitable and healthy—a working President, with his share of troubles and mistakes, who is trying to get some difficult things done but hasn’t come close to accomplishing them yet. This seems like a prize for Europeans, not Americans, and I worry that at home it will damage him politically by reinforcing the notion that he is—and will be—a world icon rather than a successful President. I don’t mind him being the former, but I most want him to be the latter. Not even a Rookie of the Year is ready to be elected to the Hall of Fame. I’m afraid this prize will be bad for Obama. For political reasons and on the merits, he should quote Shakespeare to the Nobel committee: “As you shall prove me, praise me.”

    http://www.newyorker.com/onlin.....rizes.html

  213. 213
    Little Dreamer says:

    @Jack:

    What do you think a NPP winner has to do to “earn” it? As stated several times on both this thread and the earlier OT thread, the criteria is not that someone should have DONE something, but, instead, to have a vision to DO something promoting peace in the future. But, you didn’t really want Obama to get this prize to begin with, be honest. Don’t like the criteria for selection? Take it up with the Nobel folks in Norway.

  214. 214
    AkaDad says:

    Obama won the election, which means McCain can’t bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.

  215. 215
    Jack says:

    @Sasha:

    In the end it doesn’t matter if he accepts or declines it (as fascinating as it would be, to me, if he did decline it). What matters is the next few years, the state of Afghanistan, the number of dead there, after he’s rec’d this award.

  216. 216
    geg6 says:

    @JK:

    that Al Pacino should have received an Academy Award for The Godfather Part II.

    Ummm, not everyone. That movie and the ones before and after it sucked. At least, as far as I’m concerned. The fact that either of the first two Godfather films won anything, let a lone Best Picture is a travesty. Worst films ever made that receive more unearned praise in my lifetime.

    To me, it’s like giving the Nobel to Bush.

    Obviously, YMMV.

  217. 217
    Napoleon says:

    @Little Dreamer:

    Jack likely thinks Obama needs a ( R ) after his name to earn it.

  218. 218
    JMY says:

    People sure do try to find something bad in something that is supposed to be good. The fact is, he won it, so whether it is earned or not is not determined by us, only the individuals who nominated him and chose him as the recipient. It was their decision. There will always be certain people who deserve it more than others. He should accept it and hopefully it will have a positive effect on him, his goals, policies, etc. Oh, and it would be cool if he decided to donate the $1million.

  219. 219

    @JK: Hm. It seems as even George Packer from The New Yorker does not understand the criteria for the prize. Methinks Norway has to put together a 30-second ad listing their criteria and have it play on American TV everywhere.

    geg6, yes! Validation for me not wanting to watch The Godfather! *Does happy dance.

  220. 220
    LoveMonkey says:

    @JK:

    Fuck ’em. Who cares?

  221. 221
    cat48 says:

    I love the fact that the wingnuts and the Taliban reacted the same way. nuff said

  222. 222
    cat48 says:

    I love the fact that the wingnuts and the Taliban reacted the same way. nuff said

  223. 223
    Ambergris says:

    I hope that Obama donates the prize money to some worthwhile cause.

  224. 224
    Little Dreamer says:

    @JK:

    Yes, and this Packer guy knows so much more about the criteria for choosing the winner than those idiotic Nobel folks in Norway.

    GTFO!

  225. 225
    Surly Duff says:

    I know the knee-jerk reaction, generally, will be WTF? But upon further inspection, is it really that odd of a choice? Looking at other recipients, it’s not that radical of a choice. Obama now joins the following past winners:

    – Henry Kissinger: He won in the first year as Sec. of State for signing the cease-fire to end the Vietnam War. Of course, in order to receive the award, the committee had to ignore Kissinger’s role in the Cambodian bombing campaign. But hey, he signed a paper in Paris calling for people thousands of miles away to stop shooting (although they didn’t). And don’t worry about that whole Khmer Rouge thingy. Huzzah!

    – Arafat: with Shimon Peres and Rabin for the Oslo Peace Accords. Arafat, acting as the Palestinian leader without any real authority, signed an agreement calling for Palestinian self-rule with removal of Israeli settlements. That worked well. Also, afterwards, Hamas increased its power and influence in Palestine due to the controversy over the peace accord. In addition, Arafat’s participation in this peaceful agreement obviously outshined all of his involvement in the PLO terror campaigns throughout the Middle East in the 60s-80s, including the hijacking of planes and the killing of Israeli atheletes in the Olympics. But whatever, he was involved in a PEACE ACCORD!

    And you could also question the “Peaceful” credentials of Menachem Begin, Anwar Al-Sadat, etc. Its not like the award is not always incontroversial.

  226. 226
    DBrown says:

    @Ambergris: So? Are you so stupid that you don’t realize that to be nominated is a trivial thing that any committee recognized person is allowed to do? Oh, you got to use the name Hitler in a sentence that was related to the Noble Peace Prize – wow, you are so smart, asswipe.

  227. 227
    ericblair says:

    How could he possibly win the Peace Prize when he’s started an interplanetary war by Bombing the Moon! Think of the Children!

    (Winger head explodes a la Scanners)

  228. 228
    kay says:

    @Da Bomb:

    I waited. I watched that embarrassing performance by the Democrats in Congress on “whether we can safely house convicted violent criminals in the US” and I waited. I waited for the Lefty lawyer cavalry, and they didn’t come. So, why not? I heard nothing but the urgency of process and how Holder was a joke for months. He’s processing the detainees. Now what does he do? Do the practical problems bore us too much to bother with?
    We can house them here. It’s flat-out ridiculous to say we can’t. If there’s ANYTHING we’re good at in this country, it’s prisons.
    They ALL know we can. Republicans, Democrats, every single governor, all of them, because we’re doing it now and have been doing it for years.
    It’s time to do the hard, boring work of lobbying the cowards in Congress and no one shows up? Wow. Such commitment.

  229. 229
    Jack says:

    @Little Dreamer:

    What I think about Obama’s merit as a recipient, and my comments about him declining it are two separate matters.

    I’d be fascinated by the political consequences of him declining it, as a trope, a turn, a pivot used against his opponents.

    As for merit – in a world where one man can bomb innocents in Afghanistan, argue for escalation there, give Israel a pass on Gaza (they are using our dollars to do it) and settlements, waffle on Gitmo, expand Bagram, justify renditions, work to maintain coerced Gitmo testimony against demonstrably innocent men, and cover for Cheney and Woo, and get a Nobel Peace Prize…

    …but Gandhi was snubbed, well, what more to say, really?

  230. 230
    SGEW says:

    Wait, what am I thinking?

    Climate Change! That’s what this is about. Copenhagen! The EPA announcement! The whole, you know, most important issue in the world thing.

    They’re holding his feet to the fire. Metaphorically, but it’s particularly apt in this case.

    When the new round of negotiations start, the other delegates have an initial advantage over the U.S.: You guys just won a fucking Nobel Peace Prize, in part for climate change, for fuck’s sake! Cap your emissions already!

    That’s using the Nobel’s (otherwise limited) power to one of its greatest advantages. Leverage in international negotiations. Awesome sauce.

    [hope!]

  231. 231
    anonevent says:

    @Bender: Well then, don’t. Getting bent out of shape over an award given by the Nobel Committee for following their own rules seems like a pointless gesture. It’s their award, and their money.

    It’s not like Marisa Tomei getting an Oscar suddenly imbued her with super human powers, or extra acting ability.

  232. 232
    LoveMonkey says:

    @DBrown:

    Does anyone read the basics? See the AP “myths” buster at 161.

  233. 233
    Ambergris says:

    @DBrown:

    @Ambergris: So? Are you so stupid that you don’t realize that to be nominated is a trivial thing that any committee recognized person is allowed to do? Oh, you got to use the name Hitler in a sentence that was related to the Noble Peace Prize – wow, you are so smart, asswipe.

    Lol, I was kidding with that Hitler comparison…

  234. 234
    metricpenny says:

    Congratulations to President Obama on receiving the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize!

    In my opinion it is well deserved. If for no other reason than his campaign and Presidency has given me peace of mind.

  235. 235
    JK says:

    @geg6:

    The fact that either of the first two Godfather films won anything, let a lone Best Picture is a travesty. Worst films ever made that receive more unearned praise in my lifetime.

    The real travesty was giving Art Carney the Best Actor Oscar instead of Al Pacino.

  236. 236
    anonevent says:

    @JK: Which is exactly not how the Peace prize is awarded, as others have pointed out. It’s for potential, kind of like a prestige grant.

  237. 237
    Little Dreamer says:

    @Jack:

    I’d be fascinated by the political consequences of him declining it, as a trope, a turn, a pivot used against his opponents.

    Turning it down wouldn’t be a pivot used against his opponents, it would be eating out of their hands, you idiot!

  238. 238
    Will says:

    Suck on that, Arizona State.

  239. 239
    Jack says:

    @Napoleon:

    I am not a Republican, conservative or libertarian. Please, try not to be such a cliche latte liberal, scoffing from the vaunted heights of snooty self-regard.

    You assume that a person has to be a bum conservative or a wingnut to disagree with the Nobel Committee’s choice of Obama?

    Check your assumptions. And your kneejerk. I think you kicked the table right over, with that one.

    I’m a liberal, and trenchantly so. I just don’t agree that Obama’s the right man for the prize. I don’t think people who bomb others should earn the prize.

    President Obama certainly deserves credit for embracing diplomacy, especially vis a vis Iran and Russia.

    But, rise to the level of Martin Luther King Jr, or Aung San Suu Kyi?

    No.

  240. 240
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @metricpenny:

    In my opinion it is well deserved. If for no other reason than his campaign and Presidency has given me peace of mind.

    LOL/ I must second this.

  241. 241
    DBrown says:

    @Kevin @ The Liberty Handbook: The only point made by an ass like you is that I only hope you never reproduce; otherwise, the world could ill afford its total IQ level falling so dangerously low.

  242. 242
    Janefinch says:

    If one of Beck et al’s talking points is indeed “he didn’t deserve this great honor”, I agree. Premature is putting it mildly…let’s see how much peace we get in Afghanistan for a start.

  243. 243
    Jack says:

    @Little Dreamer:

    Remind me how I’m supposed to not confuse you with a Hannity listener?

  244. 244
    kay says:

    @Jack:

    I just disagree. I think your statement “it’s his honor and dignity at stake” proves my point. How can that not be substituting his judgment for the judgment of those who gave him the award?

    I recognize the power of “I am not worthy”, but this is the US President, not a kid being generous at a sport’s award banquet, and he was given an award (we suspect) for his less belligerent and arrogant tone with the rest of the world.

    Is it wise for him to tell them who deserves their prize?

  245. 245
    DBrown says:

    @Ambergris: Didn’t realize; too slow this morning – sorry.

  246. 246
    SGEW says:

    @Jack: You can only get so many Kings or Suu Kyis at any given time. They do have to give one out every year, you know.

  247. 247
    anonevent says:

    @geg6: Right before I remembered what YMMV stood for, I came up with “You Make Me Vomit,” but I realized that didn’t quite fit the context.

  248. 248
    geg6 says:

    @kay:

    Just have to say that I love you for this post. Seriously.

  249. 249
    Bender says:

    @Parole Officer Burke:

    I’ll grant you that “clinical” and “pathological” were used for rhetorical purposes(I am not qualified to label people as such)

    Throw in “unilateral” and “illegal” and you’re getting close.

    The Bush administration violated international norms of proper state behavior

    You know, that argument might have a bit of heft to it… if the Nobel Committee hadn’t given a Peace Prize to Fucking Arafat! Obviously, they care nothing for propriety.

    So the international (leftist) community is upset at the US for ousting Saddam with an international (or as you so Orwell-ily put it, “unilateral”) coalition? Really? Really? The international community wants to whine about “proper behavior” to defend a dead jagoff dictator who violated 17 UN disarmament treaties, supported terrorists, and tried to assassinate a former US President, among other things? Really? See, this is why we should care only the tiniest of shits for the “international (leftist) community” or for their Nobel Peace Prize Committee, who — read carefully now — gave a Nobel Peace Prize to Arafat!. Simply out: They. Have. Their. Best. Interests. At. Heart. Not. Ours.

    As to “illegallity,” the truth is, they’d never try to prosecute Bush in court for Iraq because they know they’d get rolled like punks in one day.

  250. 250
    flukebucket says:

    Isn’t it worth 1.4 million dollars? No damn way he should turn it down.

  251. 251
    JGabriel says:

    damn good mr. jam:

    How can he win the peace prize after killing that fly?

    Because that fly was vector zero for a malignantly infectious variety of avian flu that would have killed BILLIONS (meant to be pronounced with the proper Carl Sagan inflection).

    The only true debate in the Nobel committee was whether it merited the Peace prize or the prize for Biology.

    So there.

    .

  252. 252
    Ash Can says:

    My takeaway, now that I’ve had some food and caffeine and before I run off to errands:

    — I thought I understood how much the rest of the world detested Bush and Cheney and their misadministration. Now I see I had no idea.

    — I’m expecting Obama to use this as an opportunity to deliver one of his pep-rally revival-meeting speeches to the world in general and to the Europeans in particular, likely to lend a hand with Afghanistan and Iraq and maybe to accept Gitmo detainees as well. Above all, though, Iran, Russia, and other nuclear/would-be nuclear powers are going to get their perky asses called out in his speech in no uncertain terms, with a whole Obama-sympathizing world watching, so they better be wearing their Sunday best for the occasion.

    — The rest of the world still has faith in the ability of Americans as a whole to get things right.

    — The rest of the world in general, and the Nobel Committee in particular, do not give Rat’s Ass Number One about what the American right wing thinks of them now that the American right wing’s trigger-happy fingers are nowhere near any Buttons of Mass Destruction.

    And finally,

    — No one in the world is able to say “fuck you” with more class than the Nobel Committee.

  253. 253
    Little Dreamer says:

    @Jack:

    I’ve listened to roughly five minutes of Hannity in my entire life (my parents used to force me to endure Limbaugh in my youth, an activty that I hated and haven’t done since being old enough to not be forced into such a position). I am a liberal, and you are trying to take away a prize of a man who the Nobel Institute decided should have it. Please tell me how I shouldn’t confuse YOU with a Hannity follower?

  254. 254
    LoveMonkey says:

    @Little Dreamer:

    Yes, but are you trenchant? Heh.

  255. 255
    kay says:

    @geg6:

    I think I’m getting a reputation here as a Holder-lover and I would just like to deny that, preemptively, geg6. Deny!

    I have a lot of sympathy for him, and I hope like hell he’s the real thing, and I think he could use an backer or two, when he does the right, hard thing, as in this instance.

  256. 256
    The Moar You Know says:

    I’m a liberal, and trenchantly so.

    @Jack: I know liberals. You’re no liberal.

    And who uses the word “trenchant”? Really.

  257. 257
    Surly Duff says:

    @Jack:

    But, rise to the level of Martin Luther King Jr, or Aung San Suu Kyi?

    Or even Arafat, Begin, Sadat, or Kissinger for that matter. Those are some real peace-mongers there.

  258. 258
    valdivia says:

    @Da Bomb:

    Glad to see you and others here agree. It is incredible (in a bad way) to see just how insane this country is that you have democrats complaining and saying this is bad for him and the country. huh? I guess the republicanization of the democratic party is deeper than I thought (in terms of judging everything in a 24 hour news cycle way)

  259. 259
    Demo Woman says:

    After hearing some of the conservative comments today, I have to wonder what needs to happen for them to put America first.
    Mike Luckovich the AJC political cartoonist was right on today.

  260. 260
    JGabriel says:

    Seriously, I have to jump on board the “premature” bandwagon. Yes, I think Obama will be a great president, but it’s still very early in his career. And his opponents will make a point of that.

    I’m glad Obama won the prize, but I think it would have had more impact and be better received if the Nobel committee had waited a year or two. Despite what the committee says, the historical import of the Nobel prize has been to acknowledge conspicuous merit, not so much to fund conspicuous potential. It’s not like they’re in a status competition with the Macarthur awards.

    .

  261. 261
    Bender says:

    @anonevent:

    It’s not like Marisa Tomei getting an Oscar suddenly imbued her with super human powers, or extra acting ability.

    My feeling is the opposite. People will compare the SNL “I haven’t done anything” sketch — which somehow was Nightly News-worthy because the State Media felt compelled to fact-check a comedy sketch for the first time in the history of comedy! — with the “Pinnacle of Human Achievement” that the Nobel Peace Prize used to represent, and they will know which one is closer to the truth. i think accepting the award will hurt Obama a little (there was backlash against Tomei for years, like there is for all undeserved recipients) and it will make a laughingstock of the Nobel Committee.

  262. 262
    valdivia says:

    kay–I very much appreciated your comment. I really hate how people just nag nag nag and then when they have to actually do something to support their preferred cause they don’t.

  263. 263
    Bender says:

    @Ash Can:

    I’m expecting Obama to use this as an opportunity to deliver one of his pep-rally revival-meeting speeches to the world in general and to the Europeans in particular, likely to lend a hand with Afghanistan and Iraq and maybe to accept Gitmo detainees as well.

    Greeeeeat. And they’ll say “Nice speech! Fuck off!” like they always do. B-b-b-but his speaking voice is so pretty!

  264. 264
    Ash Can says:

    PS: I too believe this is also the Nobel Committee’s way of saying to Obama, “We like you a lot, but don’t ever forget that the whole world is watching.”

  265. 265
    kay says:

    @JGabriel:

    I don’t know. I do know I would prefer if this Democratic President did not try to discern the whims of the punditry and the political calculus of each and every event, and respond to every 24 hour cycle, because that will cripple him.

    So. They gave it to him, and he decides what, if anything, to do about that. The only advice I would offer him is to ignore Chuck Todd and Halperin, in all things, every day.

  266. 266
    Parole Officer Burke says:

    @Bender:

    Ahem.

    Unilateral: Reasonable people can argue about the true scope of the unilateral nature of the Bush administration, but the majority world opinion holds that the United States “went at it alone” (i.e., against the overwhelming majority of world opinion) on a great variety of actions; not just Iraq. Do you seriously disagree with the proposition that the foreign policy of the Bush administration was explicitly unilateral?

    Illegal: The Bush administration violated laws, both international and domestically. This is well documented, and is not easily refuted. However, the question of enforcing these laws and sanctioning the lawbreakers is a very different issue; Illegal in action, if not in consequence. “Technically” illegal, if you prefer.

    Iraq: The allegation about the Iraq Invasion is that the decision to invade Iraq was made unilaterally (at the conceptual and motivational stage, not the instrumental one). If the U.S.. hadn’t decided to invade, there would never have been an invasion. The question of whether the decision was unilateral has little to do with your listed justifications for the invasion, which is a different issue. Additionally, no one is seriously considering prosecuting Bush for the invasion of Iraq – that was merely a violation of the U.N. charter; which is “technically” illegal, but is effectively unenforceable.

    Arafat: They also gave one to Kissinger (see above comments). This shows the partly aspirational nature of the prize – it is not always an award for good behavior that have been actualized, but for the sentiments expressed and the potential held. The prize as a push, a motivation, an implicit suggestion. Criticize that intelligently, if you will, but you have not.

    “Best Interests”: “Their” “best interest” is in humanity at large, international peace, and the end of violence. If “our” (i.e., “your”) best interest is in . . . something else . . . then you are right: their best interests are not yours.

  267. 267
    Little Dreamer says:

    @LoveMonkey:

    Sometimes, and sometimes not. You’re much better at trenchant than I am, but you knew that. ;)

    Oh, and um…. Mad Lee! ::wink::

  268. 268
    Bender says:

    @valdivia:

    It is incredible (in a bad way) to see just how insane this country is that you have democrats complaining and saying this is bad for him and the country. huh? I guess the republicanization of the democratic party is deeper than I thought

    If Obama’s named NL Cy Young winner this month, should everyone applaud and pretend he deserved it for that noodle-armed nancyball at the All-Star game?

  269. 269
    gwangung says:

    @kay: Given his past record, there’s no doubt he’ll ignore the daily news cycle.

  270. 270
    OriGuy says:

    @SGEW: I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. Climate change is going to be one of the great triggers for conflict in the future. After 8 years of deliberate denial, the committee is happy to have someone as The Leader of The Free World who takes it seriously.

  271. 271
    gwangung says:

    Al Gore – Awarded for Junk Science

    Yeah, well, keep up, oh Unread One. There apparently hasn’t been much of a debate in the scientific literature for at least a decade.

  272. 272
    kay says:

    @gwangung:

    I’m having a little fun with this. My conservative work-acquaintance just called to gauge my reaction, and I told him “Hillary should have won”. He was speechless. I ruined his morning, poor thing.

    I don’t believe this about Hillary, incidentally, but you have to throw them off balance, just generally, and she’s the gal to do that! NEVER FAILS.

  273. 273
    PaulW says:

    The biggest problem with this award is that – because the list of nominees is kept sealed for 50 years – we do not know who else was even up for consideration. We can’t determine if this award was truly on merits, especially considering that, yes, outside of good speeches and grand gestures, Obama hasn’t really DONE anything truly worthy to be considered a peace-maker or bringer of justice/truth.

    Personally, I want Obama to succeed. And I can see where Obama has repaired the nation’s global reputation considering the damage Bush/Cheney had done to it. But I don’t want him getting undue credit. I don’t want him winning simply because he’s not Bush the Lesser.

  274. 274
    LD50 says:

    @Herb:

    Why is it so hard for people to acknowledge their opinions are irrelevant? Most of the time…that’s just how it is.

    Well, that’s just your opinion, but I think it’s irrelevant.

  275. 275
    Little Dreamer says:

    @Bender:

    and it will make a laughingstock of the Nobel Committee.

    Not your problem, is it? Why don’t you let them worry about owning up to whatever choices they made? I bet they’d be happy to take the responsibility for owning up to their decision theirselves and I’m sure if they thought it was a wild choice they would have thought twice about it. The world for the most part (despite you right wingers) is much happier with Obama at the wheel and glad George Bush is no longer driving this bus into a ditch.

  276. 276
    Pasquinade says:

    Look for a new website called God Hates Norway from the Fred Phelps gang of sociopaths to go along with their God Hates Sweden site.

    http://www.godhatessweden.com/

  277. 277
    wilfred says:

    @kay:

    According to the leaks made by ‘senior Administration officials’ the choices are a) no increase of troops; b) 40,000 increase or 3) ‘a major increase in troops. Draw your own conclusions.

    Has it occurred to how many of the comments you, and nearly everyone else here, makes originate in the behavior of blue dog Democrats or the right wing orientation of the American press? Do you actually think that people of the left have any say in a center-right Homeland? You must know that on the rare occasions when Glenn makes it on TV, like his recent appearance on the Dylan Ratigan show wind up with being gang tackled by the Democrats and Republicans.

    This site for Demcratic Party faithful or liberals. It has nothing to do with the Left. Glenn is the best spokesman for the Left. His rejection of this Nobel foolishness comes from a real politics, not what you think politics actually means.

    Now go back to saying what a stupid ‘ho Sarah Palin is and how peoples’ heads are exploding because Obama won the Nobel Prize.

    But whatever you do, don’t mention the people whose heads really have been blown up since he took office, and how many people were evicted from their homes and… Oh, what’s the fucking point?

  278. 278
    Ash Can says:

    @Bender: I agree that one speech, no matter how good, isn’t going to change the world. But one thing I learned through years of studying international relations is that one must never underestimate the power of losing or keeping face.

  279. 279
    Redshirt says:

    Put simply, Obama has changed global consciousness nearly overnight, turning it from a dark, dangerous direction towards hope and the promise of a better tomorrow. For everyone, everywhere. This is a huge accomplishment and quite rare in the history of mankind. It’s worthy of recognition.

    I mean, think of what Obama means to a child in Africa — he knows, tangibly, though it might be unlikely, that he too could be anything in the world, just like Barry. This is very empowering line of thought for young people.

  280. 280
    Little Dreamer says:

    @PaulW:

    Where does it state that the recipient should have DONE anything besides be in a position to promote peace?

  281. 281
    Brachiator says:

    @mistermix:

    Nobel peace prize isn’t that important.

    Wow! Over 270 posts already.

    Already heard a co-worker this morning say, “They’ll give the Nobel Prize to anybody.’

    Hell, Dubya and Cheney couldn’t buy a Nobel.

    Oh, the Sunday pundit shows are gonna be fun. I look for some … “perspective” on the futility and unimportance of the Nobel Peace Prize from George Will.

    Wingnuts, start your engines.

  282. 282
    PaulW says:

    Another thing: How exactly can Obama deal with this?

    He accepts and of course the entire right wingnut faction will add it to their list of impeachable offenses.

    He refuses and it will look like he’s bowing to wingnut pressure.

    Of those two, the least painful for him is to accept the Peace Prize: the wingnuts are out of power and their frenzied response to this can always – and probably will – backfire.

  283. 283
    LD50 says:

    My memory is going, but didn’t Henry Kissinger win the Nobel Peace Prize once? As I recall, that was the thing that caused Tom Lehrer to stop writing songs.

    See? The Nobel Peace Prize can accomplish great things!

  284. 284
    kay says:

    @wilfred:

    I don’t have any problem with Greenwald, wilfred. I think he’s the absolute best out there at what he does.
    But that’s not enough. He fills a huge, gaping hole on education and principled dissent, but that’s not enough.
    You’re wrong about the Lefty lawyer groups. They have met with the White House. I’ve said it here before, I think lobbying the prosecutor is not a good idea. I worry about that. I don’t want even the appearance of political ends attached to prosecutions. Holder’s job is uniquely powerful in our system. I don’t think there’s enough recognition of that. Unlike Congress, Holder can seize. People. Assets. Property. I want to be careful lobbying him or pressuring him. I want a recognition that his is not a political position, because if it is, we’re in big trouble.
    There is nothing stopping them from lobbying Congress on practical issues like detention. They lobbied Holder.

  285. 285
    LD50 says:

    He accepts and of course the entire right wingnut faction will add it to their list of impeachable offenses.

    Puh-leeze. To the wingnuts, Obama being president is an impeachable offense. Every decision he makes is an ‘impeachable offense’. Who gives a fuck what they think? One more certainly won’t matter.

  286. 286
    LD50 says:

    @Kevin @ The Liberty Handbook: You aren’t done here. You haven’t called Al Gore or Michael Moore fat yet.

  287. 287
    PaulW says:

    @Little Dreamer:

    Where does it state that the recipient should have DONE anything besides be in a position to promote peace?

    It’s called Showing Your Work. It really does help to have, you know, signed a peace treaty like Teddy Roosevelt did when he won.

    Obama’s currently presiding over TWO war fronts (Iraq and Afghanistan), has switched that missile defense plan from a faulty overly-expensive land-based system to more practical sea-based system, and even though he’s promoted the “Zero Nuke” idea he still sits on top of one of the largest nuclear arsenals on the planet. Oh, and he’s done little to bring the torture advocates of Cheney’s reign of terror to justice. Other than good speeches and nice political gestures to our European allies, what else has Obama done that would be of outstanding merit?

  288. 288
    LD50 says:

    @Bender: You really should get used to the fact that except for a few people in the Likud party and their supporters, pretty much the whole rest of the world hates the Republicans.

  289. 289
    kay says:

    @PaulW:

    I think he should accept and go back to work, and let the whole media commentary continue without him.

    And that appears to be what he is doing. Although Gibbs will be hearing about it for a solid week, I’m sure.

    “Let’s poll on it!” Rasmussen is RIGHT NOW conducting an oddly-worded poll, I’m sure.

  290. 290
    Rainy says:

    I am already tired of ‘I think it was premature’ BS. Oh well, he won the award. If he could reject it, I’m sure he would. Why would he even do that? He is the only person in this world who is reaching out to the Muslim world. They are demonized by everyone else. I’m sure there are people who really spent a lifetime working towards peace but there is nothing that can be done about it now. I’m already over the ensuing articles, punditry conversations and whatever else about why he doesn’t deserve it.

  291. 291
    wilfred says:

    @kay:

    What he does is state the position of the Left. Outside of his blog, would you even know about the Lieberman’s amendment on not making abuse of prisoner photos available? The great majority of the Democratic Party doesn’t care, that’s for sure.

    The Left has no voice. It has been drowned out in the very Adminsitration that it did a great deal to create. Without the Left, Obama would have never broken down the Clinton noise machine. He has done nothing for the Left.

    The test will come shortly. I anticipate at least a 40,000 troop increase in Afghanistan. Harry Reid has already stated publicly that the Democratic Party will accept anything the President decides. I’m sure most people here will take the same position. The Left won’t. I hope.

    Everything is political in this day and age.

  292. 292
    Will says:

    You go, DNC. I don’t agree with Salon’s bullshit conclusion here. I say stick it in and break it off:

    http://www.salon.com/politics/.....10/09/dnc/

  293. 293
    Cyrus says:

    @JGabriel:

    Despite what the committee says, the historical import of the Nobel prize has been to acknowledge conspicuous merit, not so much to fund conspicuous potential.

    It’s already been pointed out upthread that this is a misconception. Aung San Suu Kyi is an example of this policy working well – she got the prize for her goals and methods, even though those methods have not borne fruit yet – and Kissinger and Arafat are probably examples of the policy working poorly – they got the prize for isolated, albeit major, instances of peacemaking during careers that overall were anything but. The NPP has often been used to recognize good intentions or the start of important efforts that ultimately weren’t totally successful, so even if that’s all this is (and I’m not so sure about that) it’s far from unprecedented.

    More generally, people, stop feeding the trolls. Probably at least one or two of them are spoofs, and the rest supported Bush and Cheney, so their condemnation should be a badge of honor.

  294. 294
    PaulW says:

    I just want to say that I support Obama, I voted for him, I love what he’s trying to do (although as an unemployed person I’d REALLY LOVE IT IF HE DID MORE TO GET US OUR JOBS BACK ahem), and I know he’s fifty times better on the international stage than the Reign of Error that was Bush/Cheney. I’m just asking, honestly, was this really the right time for this award? Had he really done that much to earn it?

    Have glanced at Sullivan to follow his reax and his reax to others’ reax… He’s making the point that we in the States just didn’t understand just how BAD Bush/Cheney handled the rest of the world. Key quote:

    I see this prize as an endorsement of his extraordinary reorientation of world politics, and as an encouragement to see it through. In the midst of our domestic battles, and their ill-temper (from which I have not been immune lately), this is an attempt to tell us: look up for a moment, see how far we’ve come in pivoting away from global conflict, and give this man a break for his efforts and the massive burden he now bears.

    It sounds about right. But still… I still feel like there should be something more… tangible. You know?

  295. 295
    Bender says:

    @Parole Officer Burke:

    Do you seriously disagree with the proposition that the foreign policy of the Bush administration was explicitly unilateral?

    Yes, I absolutely disagree with your unproved assertion, with the note that as a sovereign nation protecting its own interests, it’s no black mark to have your own foreign policy outside the veto of other nations. But that should be obvious. In fact, the US cooperated internationally in matters all over the globe — from African aid to six-nation talks with NK, to Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Illegal: The Bush administration violated laws, both international and domestically. This is well documented, and is not easily refuted. However, the question of enforcing these laws and sanctioning the lawbreakers is a very different issue; Illegal in action, if not in consequence. “Technically” illegal, if you prefer.

    So, “illegal” because DKos says so, in the absense of any allowed defense or trial. “Illegal like in Venezuela,” if you prefer. Not compelling, sorry.

    Arafat: They also gave one to Kissinger (see above comments). This shows the partly aspirational nature of the prize – it is not always an award for good behavior that have been actualized, but for the sentiments expressed and the potential held. The prize as a push, a motivation, an implicit suggestion. Criticize that intelligently, if you will, but you have not.

    That’s ahistorical garbage. Kissinger shared the Prize that year with Le Duc Tho expressly for their doomed “ceasefire” of 1973, not for anything “motivational” or “aspirational,” but for actually creating “peace,” at least in the Nobel Committee’s mind. Of course, this ceasefire lasted only a few months and a renewed Vietcong surge led to tens of thousands of dead South Vietnamese during the “ceasefire.”

    “Their” “best interest” is in humanity at large, international peace, and the end of violence.

    Naive as a box of kittens. How cute.

  296. 296
    Little Dreamer says:

    @PaulW:

    Well, if you want the prize to be awarded based on merit rather than potential, then I guess you have better get cracking on finding a way to get on and influence that committee, eh? Good luck with that.

  297. 297
    Xanthippas says:

    Obama’s currently presiding over TWO war fronts (Iraq and Afghanistan), has switched that missile defense plan from a faulty overly-expensive land-based system to more practical sea-based system, and even though he’s promoted the “Zero Nuke” idea he still sits on top of one of the largest nuclear arsenals on the planet. Oh, and he’s done little to bring the torture advocates of Cheney’s reign of terror to justice. Other than good speeches and nice political gestures to our European allies, what else has Obama done that would be of outstanding merit?

    Changed the entire tone of our foreign policy. I know that doesn’t count as much for us over here, but that’s actually a big deal to the rest of the world.

  298. 298
    Ming says:

    It’s a diverse bunch who are solidly united in their dismay at this news — Greenwald, the freichtards, and the Taliban — but they do have something in common, I think, that is antithetical to peace: extremism.

    For those who think the prize was awarded solely to encourage Obama for what he might do, as opposed to what he has already done, read the WashPo’s quotes from the chair of the Nobel Peace Prize committee. (Click Tim F’s link in the original post)

    And for those wondering why the NPP made this choice, here’s what they have to say.

    I think their comments speak to America’s importance to the global community, the huge change in the directions Bush took us vs. Obama is taking us, and most of all to the American media’s/public’s complete lack of interest in international news other than Afghanistan. Work to secure unsecured nuclear weapons, to reduce nuclear proliferation, to establish negotiation, rule of law, human rights, and multilateral collaboration as fundamental ways of doing business, a more balanced and sane approach to the Mideast and Central America and global warming and the Islamic world, the list of what Obama has been doing to promote peace is actually quite extensive. As a country, we don’t know and don’t care, but the rest of the world does know and does care.

  299. 299
    LD50 says:

    Arguably he deserves it for the mere act of keeping McCain/Palin away from the White House.

  300. 300
    Cris says:

    @Kevin @ The Liberty Handbook: Al Gore – Awarded for Junk Science

    Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change – More junk science awards.
    […]
    Point made. Case closed.

    Indeed, but not the point you think you made. By declaring yourself a climate change denier, you’ve emphatically shed all credibility.

  301. 301
    Bender says:

    @LD50:

    You really should get used to the fact that except for a few people in the Likud party and their supporters, pretty much the whole rest of the world hates the Republicans.

    Awww, now who’s going to go to the prom with us?

  302. 302
    kay says:

    @wilfred:

    He does more than that. He explains the law to a lot of people, and in a way that makes them want to wade through his zillion word treatises. I read him weekly, at least.
    If I had my druthers, there would be other liberal lawyers like him, just because I think one lawyer is, well, one lawyer. Two are better, or three, or more. He’s not the last word, because no one is. I feel the same about Krugman. Great, let’s listen to him, but not just him. Can we have more than one lawyer and one economist, or is that just crazy?

  303. 303
    Brachiator says:

    @PaulW:

    It’s called Showing Your Work. It really does help to have, you know, signed a peace treaty like Teddy Roosevelt did when he won.

    Talk about your cherry picking.

    Apparently, to the unanimous voting committee, it really didn’t need to help to have, you know, signed a peace treaty.

  304. 304
    Cris says:

    p.s. i still hate the fact that you can’t embed line breaks inside blockqutoes

  305. 305
    Foofighter says:

    Paix sur Terre pour les hommes de bonne Volonté!

    Can I haz nobelprize now?!?

  306. 306
    LD50 says:

    @Bender: I know, having the whole world hate you is some kind of freakish ‘affirmation’ for wingnuts. I’ve never understood it, myself.

  307. 307
    Parole Officer Burke says:

    (Note: Engaging trolls can be viewed as a legitimate pedagogical exercise for the edification of the community.)

    1) I believe that “hav[ing] your own foreign policy outside the veto of other nations,” re: pre-emptive invasions, charter violations, adherence to treaties, etc., is definitionally unilateral.

    2) Listing multilateral counter-examples (some of which I certainly admit were accomplishments) does not refute other examples of unilateral policy; it is an argument for the scope of the unilateralism, not for the existence thereof. There is ample evidence of the unilateral philosophies behind the administration’s foreign policy (especially from 2001-2005), and countless examples (are you actually unfamiliar with them?).

    3) Try reading a law blog, sometime. N.B.: DKos is not a law blog. Neither is this one.

    4) We could argue about the particular context of Kissinger’s co-prize (I hold that the prize may have been partly to encourage the parties to continue the cease-fire) and the justification, efficacy, and ultimate lesson of that historical event. Alternatively, I could have mentioned Arafat. However, I only mentioned it as an example of a possible Nobel committee motivation that one could critique intelligently. You have not.

    5) Your argument, therefore, is that the Nobel Peace Prize committee is “naive,” in general (i.e., unrealistically idealistic and innocent of guile)? This is, in fact, a valid critique, if it were expanded. Congratulations.

  308. 308
    ellaesther says:

    @Skepticat: Well then I hope it works. Because this is one Obama girl who has seriously begun to lose her faith (ironically though, I happen to be wearing my “Hope Won” shirt today, with his face in the middle of my chest!)

    I wrote this over to TNC just now, but I’ll indulge myself and repeat the crux of it here:

    Other than the fact that we are inching very slowly toward the possibility of talks with Iran, I literally see no actual improvement* on the international scene. I see nothing that has actually begun to change. The Iraq draw-down had been agreed on before he took office — he’s just keeping the terms of an agreement that was already in place. Afghanistan is worse, and he’s prevaricating about how to make it better. We’re told that we no longer torture, but given that he will do nothing to investigate past torture, I find myself doubting, particularly as he continues to look for the best way to keep People We Don’t Like in indefinite legal limbo. Gitmo will not be closed by January, which would be fine if it looked like there was at least progress, but mostly I see wheel spinning. And in the area that I obsess about the most, Israel/Palestine, Obama has not only not lived up to his own, self-generated hype, but he has caved to Israel on several fronts, and has effectively buried Abbas.

    I do hope that I will be proven wrong — oh my God, I hope this so desperately, and if I am proven wrong I will positively LEAP onto this board to say “I WAS WRONG!!” But right now? I just don’t see it.

    * I am about to add a caveat to that comment, though, so I’ll add it here, too: I initially failed to consider his efforts toward nuclear disarmament, and the fact that he’s brought the US back to the UN, and those are pretty big deals. I’ll certainly give him that.

  309. 309
    ellaesther says:

    @ellaesther: ooookay, so adding an asterix in front of something makes the following text bold…. Good to know!

  310. 310
    Foofigther says:

    Paix sur Terre aux hommes de bonne volonté.
    Can I haz Nobulpriz too?

  311. 311
    Jack says:

    @kay:

    I think you need to re-read my comment. I think a recipient has every right to substitute his own judgment. He should not suspend it, simply because someone wishes to honor him.

  312. 312
    Jack says:

    @Little Dreamer:

    You devolved to name calling, in short order, because you disagreed with a particular line of thought. Smacks of a Hannity listener.

    More tribalization of politics, I guess. “Must defend team. Must defend leader…”

    ***

    Moar,

    Criticizing Obama does not a Republican make. And “liberal” is not a lockstep worldview.

  313. 313
    Jack says:

    It’s really quite sad to see fellow liberals fall into the bad conservative habit of “No True Scotsman.”

  314. 314
    IndieTarheel says:

    I’m truly surprised at this, but for the chance to see the Neo-Confederates act as if they collectively ate a Sams’s Club-sized box of Super Colon Blow™, I’ll take it.

  315. 315
    Jack says:

    @ellaesther:

    Agreed.

    To belabor some repetition: What matters is the next few years, the state of Afghanistan, the number of dead there, after he’s received this award.

  316. 316
    kay says:

    @Jack:

    But the entity itself said they wished to return to their “activist roots” and nominate someone “currently involved in process”.
    I think you’re measuring this by your estimation of what the criteria are. That’s fine, for you, but you’re not the President.
    The people who are urging him to turn this down are reacting to what they perceive as a political threat. I don’t think the President should respond to every twist and turn of what the 24 hour political winds dictate. It’s his call, and like it or not, he has other things to consider, simply because of the office he holds.
    I don’t think it will help him politically. That’s not a reason to second-guess the committee.
    Events happen, and Barack Obama cannot control all of them, nor should he try to.

  317. 317
    kay says:

    @Jack:

    I’m uncomfortable with this: “these people should not have this impression of Barack Obama because they are wrong”

    There’s arrogance in that. We don’t run the world. We really, really don’t.

  318. 318
    Jack says:

    @kay:

    Again, it bears repeating that I’m not suggesting, from a political point of view, that he would be right or wrong to decline it.

    I think it would be fascinating to observe the fall out from such a move – whether or not I think he merited the award. I don’t think it would be all so awful, if handled properly, to refuse. I don’t think it’s too terrible to receive it, either.

    Perhaps, given some of the tribal banding that happens in echo chambers, I should not have been so surprised that gentle respondents would do the digital blurt out (“idiot!”) because I did not myself fall into step, muttering platitudes and praises.

    But, I wasn’t stating that he should do such and such, only that it would be a nifty trope. A comment in Galilean space, not well placed advice from an insider, whispered in the Caesar ear.

    Which is entirely separate, I admit, from my other argument, about merit. All that is so much interested commentary, since I have ef-all influence in Scandinavia (insert appropriate animated smiling face).

    As to where it counts, again: Afghanistan had better not go badly, after this. Wash, rinse, repeat.

  319. 319
    Jack says:

    @kay:

    I don’t know how that relates to my comments. Are Europeans somehow unaware of the US national discussion, re: Afghan escalation?

  320. 320
    kay says:

    @Jack:

    That wasn’t the stated basis for the award. It wasn’t about Afghanistan.
    I had an employee once who I really liked. She generally did solid work, but she was high maintenance, in a way. I’d speak with her, compliment or mild correction, and she’s contradict me. She’d especially contradict the compliments. I ended up thinking she was arrogant, and a poor listener. She would not accept my estimation of her worth to me, as an employee. That’s fine, I guess, but it leaves me out of the conversation, and I was the person doing the evaluation.

  321. 321
    kay says:

    @Jack:

    The employee story wasn’t you personally, by the way. It’s employee/Obama and employer/committee, is what I meant.

    I’ve enjoyed our discussion, and I see your point, but I just disagree. We’ll wait for the polling, right! Up or down vote! :)

  322. 322
    Little Dreamer says:

    @Jack:

    Bullshit, I called you a name because I wanted to, EOS.

    I’m not here to entertain your sorry ass, I’m here to debate, play and enjoy my time here. I’ve been coming here for five years, met my live-in lover on here and have been arguing on this board since the Terri Schiavo fiasco. I don’t need you to tell me how you want me to conduct myself. You’re not the boss around here and you certainly don’t make the rules. The rules here are to have thick skin, and don’t do anything the owner of this site does not condone. I have not broken those rules, so STFU!

    I’ve been dealing with the right calling lefties names for years. I’ve been dealing with a major upheaval of our entire political structure to the point that i was ashamed to call myself an American for even longer. Don’t tell me how to conduct myself, the behavior of the right is what creates the messes we’ve found ourselves in. So I’m not the nicest person in the world, get over it. Argue my point and feel free to tell me to fuck off, I enjoy it.

  323. 323
    Jack says:

    @Little Dreamer:

    Thank you, I guess, for making my case. “The Right,” “The Left,” analogs for folks in either camp who prefer magicky logic and easy to define opponents, instead of the everyday complexity of the world.

    You kneejerked, just like a Hannitoid. I’m cool with that, because I’ve run across all types in years of politics – political allies who were temperamentally similar to opponents, political opponents who were great human beings, and shitty politicians.

    But, is what it is…

  324. 324
    Jack says:

    @kay:

    Politically, it doesn’t matter if the award was “about Afghanistan.” What matters, come 2012, are the headlines. Nobel Peace Price recipient, continued US bombing of Afghanistan, body count.

    The connection currently doesn’t have to exist. If Afghanistan goes any further south, it will exist.

    The Nobel peace prize will be ironic commentary on his failure to keep or further the peace, and that’s political swamp country into which the bums in the GOP will play eager crocodiles, and for which triangulating, timid, process oriented Dems have little immunity (esp. judging how poorly they’ve handled health care and the bail out narratives).

  325. 325
    Little Dreamer says:

    You kneejerked, just like a Hannitoid.

    Please define because I don’t know what the hell you are talking about. The facts of the situation are that Obama was chosen for this prize based on criteria that has nothing to do with merit. I didn’t make those rules, so now, please feel free to point out my error.

    I’ll answer if you’re timely, otherwise, TZ and I are leaving to go away on a trip here in a while and we will be gone for several days.

  326. 326
    Jack says:

    @Little Dreamer:

    Instead of reading what I wrote, you presumed. You reacted emotionally, instead of arguing my point. You trotted a epithet, charge with feral opposition, instead of an argument.

    Like any number of people who populate Sean Hannity’s message board and caller lines, you sniffed “enemy” and went on the attack.

    Because I didn’t agree with you.

    Like a teabagger.

    Like a Hannitoid.

  327. 327
    Little Dreamer says:

    @Jack:

    No, I called you an idiot because you presumed that Obama deciding he wasn’t worthy of the honor was so much better than accepting it. The right WANTS him to not receive the honor. This would make him look like someone NOT WORTHY of the award he was given (in some cultures, not accepting a gift is actually an insult). We should allow him the right to accept that which he has been awarded, he deserves it based on the criteria they chose to use for the basis of awarding him with it. Now, had the award been given based on criteria that wasn’t actually met, I’d be arguing that he shouldn’t receive it, but that’s not the case. He was awarded based on efforts he can make in the future based upon the position he is placed in as POTUS.

    The award is given in hopes that it will humble the recipient and make him a better peacemaker. Obama already works with diplomacy, unfortunately he’s found himself straddled with unpopular wars and some hard choices to make. He has talked about getting our forces out of these areas, but these are delicate operations. If you want to raise a flag regarding Obama’s involvement with the wars we’re currently involved in, at least have the decency to recognize that he didn’t start these wars (they were handed to him) and you don’t know what he is planning to do (McChrystal’s demands are not necessarily Obama’s plans). No matter what Obama does in these instances, the world will expect him to make the world more peaceful due to his campaign promises and even more so now due to being given this award. This award is a good thing, it reminds him of the importance of his promises to find peaceful solutions. I trust his ability to broker peace much more than I trust your ability to detect irony, as so far, Obama has actually shown me what his values are, and I think your irony meter is broken, personally.

  328. 328
    Bender says:

    Predictably, people are going insane talking about Obama’s Peace Prize in the media today.

    Predictably, the one who’s the most idiotic is from the Democratic National Committee:

    “The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists – the Taliban and Hamas this morning – in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize,” DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO.

    Either you’re with us in praising the President, or you’re with the terrorists, eh, Brad?

    By the way, criticising the Nobel Committee = criticising the President = being a terrorist. The thinnest-skinned regime in history rolls on…

  329. 329
    Oldnovice says:

    The committee’s representative, Thorbjourn, elucidated on their reasoning. Just seems that not many have gone to the source for their information.

    <a href=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52b5IHxqHrk&feature=player_embedded”Thorbjourn’s announcement

  330. 330
  331. 331
    Bender says:

    Just a few deserving people who were passed over by the Nobel Prize Committee for Obama and his 10-day resume:

    Sima Samar, women’s rights activist in Afghanistan: “With dogged persistence and at great personal risk, she kept her schools and clinics open in Afghanistan even during the most repressive days of the Taliban regime, whose laws prohibited the education of girls past the age of eight. When the Taliban fell, Samar returned to Kabul and accepted the post of Minister for Women’s Affairs.”

    Ingrid Betancourt: French-Colombian ex-hostage held for six years.

    Dr. Denis Mukwege: Doctor, founder and head of Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo. He has dedicated his life to helping Congolese women and girls who are victims of gang rape and brutal sexual violence.”

    Handicap International and Cluster Munition Coalition: “These organizations are recognized for their consistently serious efforts to clean up cluster bombs, also known as land mines. Innocent civilians are regularly killed worldwide because the unseen bombs explode when stepped upon.”

    Hu Jia, a human rights activist and an outspoken critic of the Chinese government, who was sentenced last year to a three-and-a-half-year prison term for ‘inciting subversion of state power.'”

    Wei Jingsheng, who spent 17 years in Chinese prisons for urging reforms of China’s communist system. He now lives in the United States.”

    And from two days ago:

    China dissidents top Nobel Peace Prize speculation

    By DOUG MELLGREN and IAN MacDOUGALL (AP) – 2 days ago

    OSLO — Chinese dissidents are leading the odds of winning the Nobel Peace Prize this year, the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre and the 60th since the establishment of the People’s Republic of China.

    Speculation on the chances of Chinese dissidents for the peace prize, announced this year on Friday, has been a yearly ritual. But this time there’s a stronger current of expectation surrounding critics of China’s long-standing communist regime.

    Emerging superpower China remains deeply sensitive about criticism of its bloody 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy protesters at Tiananmen Square. And awarding dissidents would be a major poke-in-the-eye in the year the communist regime celebrates its diamond jubilee.

    The Nobel Peace Prize committee is famous for making grand symbolic gestures aimed at influencing the world agenda, as in 1989 when, in the wake of the Tiananmen massacre, the prize went to the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader.

    U.S. President Barack Obama is thought to have been nominated but it’s unclear on what grounds.

    Heh.

  332. 332
    Jack says:

    @Little Dreamer:

    I did not make the decision for my father to impregnate my mother. I am still, nonetheless, responsible for my choices, in so much as I make them.

    That Barack Obama did not start Bush’s stupid wars doesn’t not exempt him from culpability for continuing them, or escalating them.

    I need no arbitrary placement of the word “irony” to understand this truth.

  333. 333
    Jack says:

    @Little Dreamer:

    I did not make the decision for my father to impregnate my mother. I am still, nonetheless, responsible for my choices, in so much as I make them.

    That Barack Obama did not start Bush’s stupid wars doesn’t exempt him from culpability for continuing them, or escalating them.

    I need no arbitrary placement of the word “irony” to understand this truth.

  334. 334
    Little Dreamer says:

    @Jack:

    Look Jack, if Obama ends up escalating these wars and not bringing the troops back home, I will agree with you, but, just because he has to increase troop strength for a while to get us to the point where we can find some stability there (not saying there will be complete and total peace) doesn’t mean he has no plans to draw down troops and end those wars. He has hard decisions to make, and I’m sure if you were sitting in that seat, you’d probably be shitting your pants with the lousy options he has available. He means to end these conflicts but just because he wants to end them doesn’t mean he can wave a magic wand and make those situations disappear. I’m a person who doesn’t believe in war, but I realize Bush stuck us in a couple of major pickles in Afghanistan and Iraq and it’s going to take some time to figure out how to get us out. Give him a chance and see what he does before you judge him as a dishonest broker.

  335. 335
    Jack says:

    @Little Dreamer:

    No. I don’t give people “a chance” based on rhetoric. I judge on consequence. So far, from this liberal’s view, Obama is one more triangulating, corporate financed, war continuing neo-Clintonite.

    He earns my respect, or my disdain. He doesn’t get free credit.

  336. 336
    Elizabelle says:

    This was one of the best wakeups ever, 3:00 am Pacific.

    And it’s been hilarious watching the Villagers/cable cover the news. (Conveniently, Fox had a loonnng Texas truck chase on.)

    Haven’t read thread yet, but were any others amused by CNN Kiran (former Foxbot) Chetney and John Roberts not looking amused at the news? Disbelief and derision right under their makeup.

  337. 337
    Blogreeder says:

    When I first heard I really thought it was a spoof. And then when I read the reasons. Geesh. You guys have got to be kidding to be proud of this. The man hasn’t done anything.
    This is exactly the Bush landing on the deck moment. Mission Accomplished. Except President Obama isn’t wearing a cool flight suit.

  338. 338
    bago says:

    Heh, listening to post-Katrina music made with samples of both Bush and Obama speeches is so appropriate for reading this thread.

Comments are closed.