Nobel Peace Prize goes to. . .

[jjsooner73]

President Obama!

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...vgezAD9B7HUHO0

[KristiB]

Oh for Pete's sake. I try to stay away from politics on message boards but this rubs me the wrong way.

There are people in Africa, Asia, the Middle East who put their lives on the line on a daily basis, trying to make this world a better place. They have done so for decades and no one even knows their names.

Peace workers, development aid workers, journalists, doctors. They are put into jail or shot, but they don't have cute dogs and kids like Obama. They don't make a good magazine cover.

I am pissed. This is not the MTV award, for crying out loud. I'm so tired of them using this prize to influence current political developments.

The sad thing is that this will stir up more hate speech from the right wing extremists. And Obama won't be able to receive it again if he does accomplish what he set out to do.

[VictoriaL]

I like him, I support him, but it just doesn't seem as though President Obama has quite earned this particular honor, yet.

A list of previous winners

[TieKitty]

It's waaay too soon in his presidency to know whether his peace efforts and diplomacy will even work. Personally, I was ticked off when I heard this.

[donleyk]

I was pretty surprised. I think it may be premature.

[KristiB]

Obama might even agree he doesn't deserve it.

They did him no favors as people are focused on what he hasn't done in his meager 10 months in office.

[generic]

I'm not mad or upset about it, but I'm definitely surprised. I tend to miss a lot that's in the news, so when I saw that Obama got the prize my first thought was, "Oh, my, did he do something I don't know about?"

Originally Posted by KristiB

Obama might even agree he doesn't deserve it.

Very possible. But if he said that, his detractors would just accuse him of false modesty. You just can't win when you're in the public eye.

[Lucinda]

I agree Obama was awarded the Peace Prize prematurely (as much as I support him), but I think this quote from the Committee is worth pondering:

"Thorbjorn Jagland, chairman of the Nobel committee said the decision was "unanimous" and came with ease.

He rejected the notion that Obama had been recognized prematurely for his efforts and said the committee wanted to promote the president just as it had Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 in his efforts to open up the Soviet Union."
(cnn.com)

[Shugness]

I think it dilutes the meaning of having a Nobel Peace prize for the previous winners, as the general consensus does seem to be that the award was premature. What gripes me is that it was given because of an "effort" and not an actual accomplishment.

I do find it ironic though that the recent SNL skit referred to him as a "do nothing" president and now he's getting a Nobel Peace prize for his efforts.

ETA: I just noticed my former 9th grade World History teacher (who is now a principle at the same school) has his status on facebook as "World Peace has finally been achieved!!! Thank you, Mr. President." - he's being sarcastic, obviously.

[generic]

What is really irritating me about this whole thing is that people are criticizing Obama for getting the prize. They should be criticizing the committee, not the recipient. It's not as if he was jumping up and down yelling, "Oh, pick ME, pick ME!!"

[BucknellAlum]

I think the committee gave him the prize basically because he was not George Bush. Matt Lauer pretty much asked that on the Today show this morning, noting that the European committee was quite critical of Bush.

[bobmark226]

Originally Posted by Shugness

I think it dilutes the meaning of having a Nobel Peace prize for the previous winners, as the general consensus does seem to be that the award was premature.

Read today's Times. The consensus among previous prize winners was very positive. Lech Walesa was the outspoken exception.

Bob

[donleyk]

Originally Posted by BucknellAlum

I think the committee gave him the prize basically because he was not George Bush. Matt Lauer pretty much asked that on the Today show this morning, noting that the European committee was quite critical of Bush.

I'd agree that most of world is glad George Bush moved on and the US president is much better now but that question/comment is over the top from Lauer.

I have to agree the the PP who said the committee may need questioned but not Obama.

[Shugness]

Originally Posted by bobmark226

Read today's Times. The consensus among previous prize winners was very positive. Lech Walesa was the outspoken exception.

Bob

I was referring to the consensus from people who had posted on this board, the general public.

[bobmark226]

Originally Posted by Shugness

I was referring to the consensus from people who had posted on this board, the general public.

Really?

I think it dilutes the meaning of having a Nobel Peace prize for the previous winners...

Of course, yes, forgive me; the consensus in the Other Stuff forum carries more weight than the voices of previous winners. Silly me.

Let's see now: Kristi or Nelson Mandela? Sheesh, what does he know anyway? He's probably just looking for another dinner invitation to the White House.

Bob

[generic]

Originally Posted by BucknellAlum

I think the committee gave him the prize basically because he was not George Bush.

Ah, so he got the prize for actually having a brain and a spine! Makes sense to me.

[bobmark226]

No, he hasn't done anything except let the world know we believe in global warming, gotten the missiles out of Europe, initiated diplomacy in scads of countries, made out-reach to the Muslim world, re-started peace talks in the mid-east, and attempted to close GITMO, which sticks in the craw of the world, all in 9 months.

Just curious, though: without looking at any lists, how many other nominees can the naysayers name off the top of their heads? Unless I've missed it, none of the critics have put a more deserving name forward, only criticized.

Bob

[kima]

I actually feel sorry for the president.
He knows he has not done anything to deserve the prize (except not being Bush) but he has to accept it with dignity and grace.
I mean he can't go dissing the committee and saying what I bet he, Michelle and his advisors are thinking which is likely- what the hell?

[blazedog]

I believe the President has accepted the prize in the spirit in which it was intended

This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.

That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.

This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.

So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

[TieKitty]

It will be interesting to see what he does with the $1,000,000 +/- prize money....

[bobmark226]

Originally Posted by kima

I actually feel sorry for the president.
He knows he has not done anything to deserve the prize (except not being Bush) but he has to accept it with dignity and grace.
I mean he can't go dissing the committee and saying what I bet he, Michelle and his advisors are thinking which is likely- what the hell?

Very thoughtful analysis, Maureen.

Would you care to comment on some of the nothings I posted just before you followed with this?

Bob

[blazedog]

Originally Posted by TieKitty

It will be interesting to see what he does with the $1,000,000 +/- prize money....

He is donating it to charity.

[TieKitty]

Originally Posted by blazedog

He is donating it to charity.

I hadn't heard that yet. I'm happy that he is.

[generic]

Originally Posted by bobmark226

No, he hasn't done anything except let the world know we believe in global warming, gotten the missiles out of Europe, initiated diplomacy in scads of countries, made out-reach to the Muslim world, re-started peace talks in the mid-east, and attempted to close GITMO, which sticks in the craw of the world, all in 9 months.

Nicely summarized, Bob. Maybe the naysayers need to be a little more articulate and say his efforts have not yet borne fruit rather than "he hasn't done anything."

Although surprised, I'm happy for him and for us as a nation. And thank you, blazedog, for posting Obama's acceptance. I found it inspiring.

[leightx]

It seems fitting to me. Is there anyone else that would be a better option, considering what the award was meant to recognize? I'm not being sarcastic - just curious. I know there are undoubtedly many who have done greater things (though perhaps on a smaller scale), but as far as improving international relations, Obama seems like the best candidate.

In his 1895 will, Alfred Nobel stipulated that the peace prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses."

[generic]

Thanks for posting the quote, Leigh. I'd never read it before. (I know, I could have looked it up myself, but I didn't.)

[Shugness]

Originally Posted by bobmark226

Really?



Of course, yes, forgive me; the consensus in the Other Stuff forum carries more weight than the voices of previous winners. Silly me.

Let's see now: Kristi or Nelson Mandela? Sheesh, what does he know anyway? He's probably just looking for another dinner invitation to the White House.

Bob

Calm down Bob and let me explain because you've taken two separate thoughts I've had and are combining them.

1.) As for the general consensus comment, it goes beyond this message forum, but the others I follow, the comments I'm seeing on my facebook page and even the media's response - either they he's undeserving of the award or undeserving of the criticism and it should be directed at the committee. I've noticed very little support for his deserving of the award, in fact, I may be mistaken but it seems like you're the only one who has so far in this topic. ETA: one more seems to be in favor of.

2.) In respect to diluting the value to previous winners - when I think Nobel Peace Prize, I think Mother Theresa. I don't think Obama can hold a candle to her at this time.

As for what previous winners think, I think it would be in bad taste for them to say anything but positive, else it looks like their saying "He's not as great as I am!". Ya know?

And No - I don't know who else was in the running but it's irrelevant - like KristB said, there are people who have a more hands on effort to make our world a more peaceful place that are more deserving.

[jellyben]

I agree with Obama-he is not deserving of the award.

[bobmark226]

Originally Posted by Shugness

Calm down Bob and let me explain because ....

Calm down Bob who?

Wrong on two counts, punctuation and my state of mind; why would I even want to continue reading after that start?

Oh, it's your Facebook friends' opinions? Do any of them have credentials like these two estimable fellows below?

(Note to Blazedog, that speech? I'm waiting for the "fake humility" and "Saint Barack" digs to start.)

Making a Case for Engagement
Walter Isaacson

Walter Isaacson is the chief executive of the Aspen Institute. He is the author of “Kissinger” and “Wise Men: Six Friends and the World They Made,” among other biographies.

When Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973, it prompted one former Harvard colleague to say it proved that the Norwegians did, in fact, have a sense of humor. The prize, which was for negotiating the end to American involvement in the Vietnam War, was supposed to be shared with his counterpart Le Duc Tho, who promptly rejected it saying, “peace has not yet been established.” Kissinger himself offered to return the prize when Saigon fell to Communist forces two years later, an offer that was declined, and he donated the money to charity.

The president has not clearly articulated his policy, which represents a shift in America’s relationship with the rest of the world.

In President Obama’s case, I think that the reason for some of the surprise, especially at home, is that the administration has not articulated clearly enough his new policy of engagement. Like the policy of containment articulated by Kennan and others in the late 1940s, which formed the basis for a generation of bipartisan support for confronting Soviet expansionism, engagement is more than merely a tactic or strategy.

It is a shift in America’s relationship with the rest of the world. The new threat we face, which is as dangerous in different ways as Soviet Communism was, is jihadist terrorism. In his Cairo speech, Obama reached out to the majority of Muslims who value peace and stability to join in resisting this common threat. As he looks for ways to follow up on that speech, the Nobel prize can help him, indeed encourage him, to better engage publics around the world, from Iran and Iraq and Israel and the Palestinian territories to Yemen and Afghanistan and, even, the U.S.

Well-Deserved Prize
Douglas Brinkley

Douglas Brinkley, a professor of history at Rice University, is the author of “The Wilderness Warrior” and the editor of “The Reagan Diaries.”

I was shocked by the sudden announcement that President Barack Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize. I just didn’t see it coming. But, after a half-day of reflection, I now firmly believe it’s an inspired choice.

Obama didn’t just write ‘The Audacity of Hope,’ he actualized it on the campaign trail: he is the ambassador of hope.

Certainly, President Obama doesn’t deserve the award for his presidential accomplishments. There hasn’t been a big Camp David-like peace moment since the inauguration. And he certainly didn’t end a major war (like Theodore Roosevelt did in 1905). Nor did he spearhead the creation of an institution with lofty goals like the League of Nations in the Woodrow Wilson tradition.

But the Norwegian Nobel Committee never claimed they were giving President Obama the award for his nine-month old presidency. Barack Obama, it seems, deserved the Nobel for his audacious ability to navigate the curse of racism with unparalleled integrity and high-mindedness. (Oslo, in fact, thought the same of Martin Luther King Jr. back in 1964 when the Atlanta freedom fighter won the coveted award at the age of 35.) Apparently the other deciding factor for Oslo was Mr. Obama’s high-profile promotion of international diplomacy in the traditional multilateral sense.

Plus, let’s face it, Obama has become the world ambassador of hope — quite a burden to carry. Millions of mothers in the world, whether in a remote village or a forgotten corner of urban sprawl, often tell their sons and daughters: “Yes, you can grow up to be like Barack Obama. Oh, yes you can!” As the Nobel Committee knows, there is a huge battle being waged between the forces of light and darkness in the world.

President Obama is one of the brightest flames the human rights movement has seen since Mahatma Gandhi (who never won the prize) took up his loom and marched to the sea.

[kima]

Originally Posted by bobmark226

No, he hasn't done anything except let the world know we believe in global warming, gotten the missiles out of Europe, initiated diplomacy in scads of countries, made out-reach to the Muslim world, re-started peace talks in the mid-east, and attempted to close GITMO, which sticks in the craw of the world, all in 9 months.

Just curious, though: without looking at any lists, how many other nominees can the naysayers name off the top of their heads? Unless I've missed it, none of the critics have put a more deserving name forward, only criticized.

Bob

I am a HUGE Obama fan and I applaud the efforts he is making in many facets of international diplomacy. In my teeny weeny little mind though the Nobel Peace Prize should recognize either a lifetime of work in the area of peace or at least a very significant, concrete result.

Maybe in 6-8 years Obama will have fulfilled many of the ideas he has initiated, but for now the award should go to someone who has walked the walk for a tad longer.

And I also read that the nominations had to be in by the end of February- Obama was still learning his way around the White House back then.