Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

[Anonymous]

This is the headline on WaPo's website. I am a Obama supporter and I don't quite get this. I thought it was a joke at first.

[Anonymous]

Times have changed. All you need is good intentions, not deeds.

[jsteele]

I'm pretty sure it's a plot to wipe out the Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck crowd by causing a wave of heart attacks and brain aneurisms among right-wing pundits.

More seriously, I think this shows just how reviled George Bush's "cowboy unilateralism" was in most of the world. After 8 years of "you are with us or against us", simply not being Bush is enough to become hugely popular. I remember traveling to Europe during the Reagan Administration and being shocked by the widespread belief that Reagan was very dangerous and eager to start a world war. I had never sensed that perspective in the US. I haven't been out of the country lately, but it's possible that we are not aware of the full impact Obama has had internationally -- at least on the level of public perception. He may have done more to change the atmosphere than we realize. A recent poll did find that the US was now the world's most respected country. That's certainly a change from what we've seen.

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

[Anonymous]

Bush was an embarrasment and a threat to world peace.

[Anonymous]

Can someone explain in a nutshell what exactly Obama has done to receive this award? I am not being cynical, just curious.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I'm a pretty hard-core democrat, and I don't really understand what he did to deserve this. I'd hardly equate him with the Dhali Lama or Ghandi, or even with Jimmy Carter at this point in his presidency.

[Anonymous]

Apparently all you have to do is to Not Be Bush. On one hand, I could have done that, and I think the medal would look great next to my pinewood derby trophy. On the other hand, it says a lot about Bush. Total slap in the face to him.

[Anonymous]

To answer PP on what did to deserve it:

1) He’s not Bush.

2) Nuclear reduction pact with Russians

3) The Cairo speech.

4) The UN speech.

5) Moving towards multilateral engagement, re: Russia, Iran, N. Korea, Israel/Palestine, China, etc.

6) The Nobel committee wanted to use their influence to push Obama (and the American polity, I suppose) towards a more peaceful agenda

7) global perception of America has done a total 180 since he was elected, making America the most admired country in recent polls. http://www.gfkamerica.com/newsroom/current_pr/index.en.html

[Anonymous]

This award is a slap in the face to other people who have actually earned the award. Nominations for the award were due in early Feb, about 11 days after the inauguration.

That's right after 11 days in office Obama had done enough to earn the award.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:This award is a slap in the face to other people who have actually earned the award. Nominations for the award were due in early Feb, about 11 days after the inauguration.

That's right after 11 days in office Obama had done enough to earn the award.

Is there any reason that the committee would not consider things that happened after the nomination? I can imagine that if someone is nominated in Feb., but in March pulls out a gun and kills someone in cold blood, that would affect their chances. So, why wouldn't Obama's activities since Feb. also be considered?

[Anonymous]

Here is the process:

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/process.html

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This award is a slap in the face to other people who have actually earned the award. Nominations for the award were due in early Feb, about 11 days after the inauguration.

That's right after 11 days in office Obama had done enough to earn the award.

Is there any reason that the committee would not consider things that happened after the nomination? I can imagine that if someone is nominated in Feb., but in March pulls out a gun and kills someone in cold blood, that would affect their chances. So, why wouldn't Obama's activities since Feb. also be considered?

Hahahaha.

The one thing that people have a hard time understanding is that this is the Nobel committee's award. It is not your award. They can give it to whomever they want to for whatever reason they want to.

[Anonymous]

WE the American People deserve it for pulling a 180 on the Bush Doctrine and choosing to change America's image by using a peaceful (but expensive) democratic process. The Peace Prize is a PR gesture not a merit based-award like, say Physics. As in Secretary of Energy Steven Chu who shares a Nobel prize for something he actually did. If I were Obama, I'd give it up just so I wouldn't be compared to someone who works for me. lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain in a nutshell what exactly Obama has done to receive this award? I am not being cynical, just curious.

I'm sure part of the Nobel Committee's decision was driven by a desire to give further momentum to Obama's goals and actions-- and so is forward-looking rather than based only on achievements so far.

However, I suspect that those diplomats and others around the world actually in the room working on these problems have seen a noticeable and significant shift in the terrain upon which operate, and I wouldn't discount the how important this is. When Obama was at the UN, Andrew Sullivan wrote the following post, highlighting the sophistication and nuance of Obama's approach to foreign policy.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/busted.html

[Anonymous]

This was posted by the AP: Myths about the Nobel Peace Prize

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.

Here is the link to the story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091009/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nobel_peace_myths