NEW! Google Custom Search

Loading

Barack Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

Gary's picture

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/world/10nobel.html?_r=1&hp

The people who gave us golf and called it a game are the same people who gave us bag pipes and called it music and haggis and called it food.

The people who gave us golf and called it a game are the same people who gave us bag pipes and called it music and haggis and called it food.

assibams's picture

(post #53220, reply #1 of 111)

Quite certainly a better pick than Silvio Berlusconi (what a joke), but still rather strange IMO. Much better candidates with a lot more achievements. My favorite was Bono.


"A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort."
Herm Albright

"A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort."
Herm Albright

MadMom's picture

(post #53220, reply #2 of 111)

I am a strong supporter of Obama, but disagree with this pick.  He has done nothing to deserve the prize except to try to repair some of the damage done by the previous administration. 



Not One More Day!
Not One More Dime! Not One More Life! Not One More Lie!

End the Occupation of Iraq -- Bring the Troops Home Now!

And Take Care of Them When They Get Here!

shelly's picture

(post #53220, reply #3 of 111)

Wonder what those Norwegians were thinking about .....

Napie's picture

(post #53220, reply #6 of 111)

It also really diminishes the value of the “Dynamite Medal”.  

Marcia's picture

(post #53220, reply #14 of 111)

Well goodness, they awarded one to Yasser Arafat in 1994. Granted it was one third of a prize, but still....

Napie's picture

(post #53220, reply #17 of 111)


So another bad example makes it OK????  I’m sure Obama just loves having his prize compared to Yasser Arafat’s, that'll make great press….

Marcia's picture

(post #53220, reply #22 of 111)

I didn't mean to imply that one bad example makes Obama's selection fine, but that it was not a surprise to me, nor should it have been to you, IMHO.

FL.Cook's picture

(post #53220, reply #68 of 111)

Good lord!!!

Carole

Carole
KarenP's picture

(post #53220, reply #49 of 111)

 I told a friend last night that I think that it was because he didn't bomb them after they announced that chicago didn't get the games.  He thought that was hilarious..
  I'm hopeful that this win for a new outlook on how the world community should conduct business comes to fruition.
 


Edited 10/10/2009 2:06 pm by KarenP

Gretchen's picture

(post #53220, reply #50 of 111)

Every letter to the editor in the Times was negative, even from supporters.


Last night's Leherer report had some interesting points.  One was that Ralph Bunche won it (maybe) 45 years ago for work on the Middle East.


It was also pointed out by a Norwegian source (I think) that two other times it was awarded on "hope" of bringing some political capital--Willie Braun for his friendliness to East Germany and ____Arias, for something in Central America (?).


Gretchen
Gretchen
leonap's picture

(post #53220, reply #51 of 111)

Thanks. I had meant to look that up. Obama referred to it being awarded before to provide momentum to a cause.

Canuck's picture

(post #53220, reply #4 of 111)

I feel the same way and thought the same thing.

Napie's picture

(post #53220, reply #5 of 111)

This will hurt his efforts far more than helping them.

Jean's picture

(post #53220, reply #7 of 111)

What were they thinking??


"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled,
public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."
                                               - Cicero  - 55 BC
http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/

A  clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.
http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
help to provide free mammograms for women in need
Napie's picture

(post #53220, reply #9 of 111)

The deadline for nominations is February 1, meaning Obama would've been nominated after being in office for just 11 days.


WTF....

StevenHB's picture

(post #53220, reply #8 of 111)


It seems that many of us are thinking the same thing.  I wrote the following before reading any of your comments.

I think that the Prize ought to be for accomplishments more than potential. I'm hopeful, possibly optimistic, that Obama will achieve something great but he hasn't accomplished much yet. As such, I think that the Prize is premature.


Napie wrote that the award to Obama diminishes the Prize.  Sadly, I have to agree.  The other Nobel Prizes are awarded to people who have accomplished things. I suspect that the Nobel committee is trying to become an actor on the world stage.   And I think that the award is a slap in the face to George W. Bush.  While that slap may be deserved, I don't think that this was the right way to deliver it.



Maybe we'll find direction, around some corner, where it's been waiting to meet us.


Without coffee, chocolate, and beer, in that order, life as we know it would not be possible

Without coffee, chocolate, and beer, in that order, life as we know it would not be possible
Napie's picture

(post #53220, reply #10 of 111)

I seriously believe Alfred Nobel did NOT want his legacy being used to slap people.  This is really wrong at so many levels not the least of which is the damage it will do to Obama politically.  

MadMom's picture

(post #53220, reply #11 of 111)

I don't see it as a slap at George Bush, although he probably deserved it.  I just see it as an inappropriate premature award to someone based on what he might accomplish.



Not One More Day!
Not One More Dime! Not One More Life! Not One More Lie!

End the Occupation of Iraq -- Bring the Troops Home Now!

And Take Care of Them When They Get Here!

Biscuit's picture

(post #53220, reply #13 of 111)

I agree with everyone else.  I support and like our President, but this baffles me.  I don't get it.

"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."  - George Bernard Shaw

"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."  - George Bernard Shaw

smslaw's picture

(post #53220, reply #16 of 111)

I think from the start of his term, the President has set a new tone in the relations between the US and the rest of the world. I'll disagree with everyone and say I'm pleased and proud that my president won the prize.

roz's picture

(post #53220, reply #19 of 111)

I agree...Obama has set a new bar for diplomacy. Every foreign (non-US) person I meet have good things to say about Obama. (Haven't met any Iraqis, Iranis or Afghanis, lately.) Perhaps US citizens need to open their minds in how the rest of the world has viewed the US government in the past.

I guess Obama's speech about wanting to curtail nuclear weapons has a lot to do with it. Nobel and all.

Be impeccable with your word. Don't take anything personally. Don't make assumptions. Do your best. Don Miguel Ruiz
Be impeccable with your word. Don't take anything personally. Don't make assumptions. Do your best. Don Miguel Ruiz
Lee's picture

(post #53220, reply #60 of 111)

I am in complete agreement with you. Aside from all of the widely reviled Bush policies that he reversed or did away with in the first few days of his presidency, in the short space that he has been on the world stage he has fostered a new environment, one in which other nations feel less animosity and resentment toward the US, one in which other nations may be more willing to work together to solve common problems. The policy built on the theory of American exceptionalism made far more enemies for this country than friends. Obama's world view is far different. I think he sees us as taking the lead role in furthering common pursuits, such as protecting the environment, controlling the spread of nuclear arms, fostering peace among warring neighbors, etc., but I think he understands that we can't accomplish these things alone. The WSJ, in its editorial yesterday, agreed with the selection and referred to his view of the US as being that of first among equals. This is a radical change from the policies of past administrations, particularly the Bush years during which we lost credibility and antagonized so many countries with our heavy handed, go-it-alone philosophy. We here in the US may not fully appreciate just how much those in other countries applaud his respectful approach in dealing with other nations as partners, not underlings.

I will add that I don't think this will hurt him here at home in the least little bit.


Edited 10/11/2009 5:07 pm ET by lee

MadMom's picture

(post #53220, reply #61 of 111)

Let's face it, the right-wing conservatives take a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" attitude.  He was castigated for going before the IOC, the right wing was gleeful when Chicago lost, seeing it as a slap in his face.  If he hadn't gone, and Chicago had lost, they would have castigated him for not going.  If he had somehow turned down the prize (an action which I believe would have been extremely rude) the right wing would have castigated him as believing he knew better than the Nobel committee.  He should just stop worrying about what they think; their constant opposition has made them irrelevant.



Not One More Day!
Not One More Dime! Not One More Life! Not One More Lie!

End the Occupation of Iraq -- Bring the Troops Home Now!

And Take Care of Them When They Get Here!

kathymcmo's picture

(post #53220, reply #66 of 111)

I read one pundit's piece that said if Obama had somehow found a cure for cancer, the far right would castigate him for putting decent, hardworking patriotic oncologists out of work ;-) 

Jean's picture

(post #53220, reply #67 of 111)

But Bob Schieffer, host of CBS' "Face the Nation," said in his brief editorial commentary Sunday that the committee may have done Obama a disservice. 


"I would guess no one at the White House was praying for the president to win the Nobel just yet, not because they're selfless humble souls whose only goal is to help humanity but because they are very good professional politicians who would know better than most of us that an undeserved accolade has a high probability of backfire," he said. "I generally agree with the president's approach on foreign policy, but the Nobel Committee did him no favors by giving him the award before he had anything to show for his efforts. ... What the Nobel Committee has managed to change -- and I am sorry to say it -- is the way we look on the prize."



"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled,
public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."
                                               - Cicero  - 55 BC
http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/

A  clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.
http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
help to provide free mammograms for women in need
kathymcmo's picture

(post #53220, reply #71 of 111)

Yes I heard that part of the show (love Bob Schieffer!) and I think he is absolutely right. I'm sure if Obama had his druthers he wishes the committee had given the award to someone else.


But they didn't so what else can he do but accept it, humbly, which I think he's done. In the end I believe the fault lies with the Nobel Committee, they should've picked someone more deserving.

Lee's picture

(post #53220, reply #70 of 111)

IA with you.  It's deja vu.  The right winguts did the same thing when Clinton was elected, but I don't think Obama spends much time worrying about what they think of him.  I am glad to see the WH is finally pushing back against some of the most outlandish things being said. 

leonap's picture

(post #53220, reply #69 of 111)

Very well said!

Napie's picture

(post #53220, reply #15 of 111)

How you see it is not the point, the question is did the committee mean it as one and it may be a good possibility they did.  Damn talk about giving his opposition a bucket of ammo…

MadMom's picture

(post #53220, reply #18 of 111)

I don't see how his "loyal" opposition can use the idea that it might have been a slap in the face of George Bush to give the Peace Prize to Obama.  Wouldn't they be admiotting that Bush deserved the slap by calling it one?  I think he did, but surely the conservative base doesn't.



Not One More Day!
Not One More Dime! Not One More Life! Not One More Lie!

End the Occupation of Iraq -- Bring the Troops Home Now!

And Take Care of Them When They Get Here!