PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS WON THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE FOR 2009

[scaleybark]

Thorbjorn Jagland, chairman of the Nobel committee, "rejected the notion that Obama had been recognized prematurely for his efforts and said the committee wanted to promote the president just it had Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 in his efforts to open up the Soviet Union."

According to CNN, "The president had not been mentioned as among front-runners for the prize, and the roomful of reporters gasped when Thorbjorn Jagland, chairman of the Nobel committee, uttered Obama's name."

I wonder if they really did him a favor.  Now, we will have to listen to snarky, sarcastic comments about this for the rest of his term.  I bet this will completely dominate the political and media scene for the next few weeks.  **sigh**

[jtwestside]

Obama is nothing more than a modern day Neville Chamberlain.

[Tripoli1711]

That is a weak analogy from Mr. Jagland.  By 1990 Gorbachev actually had accomplished quite a bit.  Perestroika was put forward by him in 1986 and really moved forward in 1987.  Glasnost was implemented in '87-'88.  Gorbachev hadn't just talked about doing things.. he had actually done them.  

[JMac]

what a traveshamockery.

[Overstreet]

In 1994 they gave the award to Yasser Arafat (PLO), Shimon Peres (Israel), and Yitzhak Rabin (Israel). They had just tried to make a peace agreement. It didn't take.

One main difference between Obama and all the others on the list,

http://nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/peace.html

........is that they worked on it for years and you could show a quantifiable event of series of events to explain the award. Obama has just made a lot of speeches over the course of 8-10 months. Is the world really safer or does the committee hope it might be safer?
.....or trying to create an outcome?

[Doctor_K]

I don't know why people are saying "it's such a shock."  President Obama was nominated for the award before he was inaugurated anyway, as President-elect.  Therefore, he must have done something to merit the nomination prior to being President.

Nor is he the first or even second US President to receive said Award.

Jimmy Carter did plenty for 'the community' post-presidency.  He won it in 2002.  Theodore Roosevelt brokered peace between Russia and Japan ending the Russo-Japanese War circa 1905.  He won it thereafter.  Woodrow Wilson and his 14 Points and League of Nations idea in the 19-teens or early 1920s, post World War I.  He won it thereafter.

Strictly speaking on his previous positions, on what criteria was he nominated on serving in those capacities?  Good intentions make good deeds.  Is that the basis for his winning this Award?

[jaxnative]

Maybe his "apologizing for America" tour did have it's effect?

[thelakelander]

Lol, Obama is a little man child in Chicago according to Rush.

Rush just compared this accomplishment with the NFL awarding 0-4 Kansas City the 2010 Super Bowl trophy because their ownership means well and has good intentions.

[Tripoli1711]

I think it lends some important perspective to realize who makes this selection.  I know some people like to think this signifies that the world sees Obama as "its savior".

Whether that is or is not true, the Nobel Peace Prize is not foreman of that jury.  The committee who selects this prize is made of of 5 people appointed by the Norwegian Parliament.  I am unsure whether it is majority vote, but it probably is.  If so, 3 members of the Norwegian Parliament do not have the requisite authority to anoint a savior of the world.

Of the 5 members of the "Norwegian Nobel Committee" three are avowed leftists who share Mr. Obama's political leanings.  2 members are members of the Labour party in Norway.  As most know, the Labour party is close to our Democrats.  One of these Labour members is the chairperson, Mr. Jagland.  Since 1999, Jagland has been a Vice-President of the "Socialist International", a committee of sorts of all the socialist movements around the world.

A third member of the Nobel Committee is from the "Socialist Left" party in Norway.

Am I trying to call Obama a "socialist"?  No.  Not in this post.  What I am trying to say is let's see this for what it is:  This doesn't say the "world loves America again".  This doesn't say that the world is suddenly unaware that we are still bombing the shit out of people at this very minute.  This is a political endorsement by three appointees of the Norwegian Parliament who share Mr. Obama's political world-view.  

[Captain Zissou]

A British opinion: "this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.

Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.

Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace. "

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6867711.ece

[Captain Zissou]

SDare, that was far less thought out and substantive than your normal posts.  Keep it cool.

[Tripoli1711]

Let's get one thing out of the way: I am as American and damn proud of it as anyone could ever hope to be. 

My point is simply that this is a transparent political job.  Nothing more and nothing less.  The man has done nothing but give speeches and talk about what he would like to do.  Is this a change in tone from Washington?  I guess... but I do not recall Bush openly advocating for nuclear proliferation.  Substantively, the man has done zero substantively to advance the cause of world peace.  As I said before, I would be very proud if an American president had actually earned the award.  If Ronald Reagan had been elected 9 months ago, done nothing substantive, simply made speeches and given vision, and a committee appointed by a foreign parliament, sitting with a majority who are ideological brothers with Regan gave him the prize.. I would call that a transparent political job as well.

[Tripoli1711]

MLK, Jr. won the award in 1964.  By that point he had been a landmark leader in the Civil Rights movement for nine YEARS, not months.  The Montgomery bus boycott was in 1955.  In 1963 he lead the march on Washington.  Comparing the two is a lazy analogy at best.

What got me started in this thread was the first post:
"Obama may be sliding in polls here in the states. But the World has him as the savior, God Bless Mr. Obama and the Democrat Party!"

The award is so clearly partisan that it stretches the limits of credulity and intellectual honesty to see it as anything more.  That many will now use this as a sign that the "world respects America again thanks to Obama" is bogus.  Perhaps the world does respect us more because of Obama.  Who knows?  The point is that this is a shockingly transparent political game and should be noted as such.

And come on... while we are pointing out pointless political tomfoolery, take a look at the DNC's quote.  Yes, OK, the Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists.  Hyperbole maybe?

Putting politics above patriotism is unfortunately a charge accurately levied at all in Washington, lest we forget the likes of Reid, Kerry and Murtha stating that "The war is lost" while still going on, that our soldiers were "terrorizing women and children in the dark of night" and calling a group of marines "murderers in cold blood" although they were later exonerated. 

They all do it.

[JaxBorn1962]

The only thing this does is confirm how irrelevant the award is.

ha ha ha ha ha ha Well gb sr and gwb jr WILL NOT GET NOBEL PEACE PRIZES

[Tripoli1711]

I guess I am supposed to be upset now?  I was vocally critical of Bush for the last several years of his presidency, and I didn't particularly care for Bush 41 either.  Neither one of them deserve Nobel Peace Prizes and so they shouldn't win one.