Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

[Sean]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

oh, come off it. like the democrats don't pull the same stuff when republicans are in office? i'm sure that if george w. bush had won some award, most of us would be lauding it. it's not about 'supporting the country'. obama is not america. bush is not america. they are our leaders, not gods.



once again, what if the war in iraq had just broken out, fahrenheit 9/11 had just come out, and george w. bush wanted to speak to schoolkids about education. BRAINWASHING!!!

You seem to have missed my point. I'm not saying that opposing Obama is opposing America. That would be a stupid assertion. What I said is that Obama's opponents have reached a point where they're opposing him at the expense of America. For instance, as I mentioned earlier, losing the Olympics meant losing a huge influx of revenue for the entire U.S. - liberals and conservatives alike - but many Republicans literally cheered the national loss because they prioritize any defeat of Obama over a victory for the country. That's ass-backwards.

Also, I didn't say Democrats don't do similar stuff. In fact, I was complaining about Democrats doing the same kinds of things here on these boards during Bush's administration. What bothers me is that Republicans are doing the same thing but on steroids now - and with guns.

[Deckard]

Fwiw, I guess my own take is:

Does Obama deserve some sort of recognition?
Yes. An enormous amount. Even going back to the primaries.

Does he deserve the Nobel Peace prize?
No. And his press briefing was quite graceful in acknowledging this, I thought.

Will this help him?
Politically, it's doubtful. I suppose it may help 'the world' if it bears additional responsibility down on his shoulders as a peace-maker, which seems to be what the Nobel committee had in mind. (Of course some would argue that, in some situations, the absence of action may be just as damaging to world stability). He already commands a great deal of respect internationally, so I don't see how this award can add much more than already exists. As for domestically...

Will this hinder him?
Yes. Certainly in the US, where - short and long term - it seems to be perfect ammunition for ridicule. Which is a shame, because it's normally something to be immensely proud of. Overseas, will it hinder him? Only if he fails to live up to expectations, which is not unlikely. If he some day becomes known as a warmonger, the award may come to be viewed with the same disdain as Kissinger's.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by the mongoose

Nope. I'm a Democrat, I never watch Fox, and I hated Bush's job in command as well. This is practically a one party system parading around as a two party system anyways.

I'm sorry, but I just can't believe you on this. You've parrotted every Republican and Glenn Beck talking point, and cut and pasted article after article from conservative sources like Townhall.com. You may not watch FOX, but you do seem to regularly follow the same sources they do.

Originally Posted by the mongoose

P.S. When you guys click on the Obomber the Moon thread to see what a looney batshit baby I am, read the other shit I say near the end about Miss America hopefuls and Super Bowl rings. I think that shit is relevant to this discussion.

That the differences between these examples needs to be pointed out to you is absolutely ridiculous. Does any Miss America or Super Bowl winner possess comparable world standing and intellect to effect change the way the President of the United States can? No, not at all. Which is why that shit is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

what exactly has he done to win the nobel peace prize? he hasn't done anything yet! although he is an image of hope to many people, we have to realize that he is a human being, and he shouldn't be awarded for just being around. the only thing i can think of that he has accomplished is closing the Guantanamo bay prison, and why should he be awarded for that? jimmy carter was not awarded the nobel peace prize for forgiving those who ducked out of the draft. george bush was not awarded the nobel peace prize for leading the kuwaitis to freedom from sadaam. the nobel peace prize has turned into a political sham. the fact of the matter is that those that are running the nobel committee have become notoriously left-leaning, and they think obama is the biggest lefty socialist to be elected president in america yet, and they want to give him a trophy. what a bunch of garbage.

to hear from the horse's mouth what the reasoning was behind awarding Obama the Nobel Prize.

[chuck]

Originally Posted by Deckard

Stop being all measured and sensible, Chuck.

See - this is why my internet forum posting mojo is past its use-by date. I used to be a contrary bastid - now I'm just sensible.



On topic - I agree that it's unfortunate that Obama has been given the award at this point. I can see the reasoning and purpose behind giving it. I can also see the actual value of the Nobel Peace Prize - as somewhat nominal and aspirational.

Unlike the other Nobel awards - by its very nature it's nebulous and open to dispute. And in this case - as you've said it's gone to be used by critics of Obama to further discredit Obama - despite it being nothing to do with him personally.

If he refuses the prize - he'll get even more grief by his domestic critics, and internationally it will be a received poorly as well. Regardless of what reasons he gives for refusing it.

FWIW - this is a good thing - when was the last time a serving President was honoured with an international award like this? It's a peace award - you'd think all of the right-wing christian conservatives would be applauding it - you know in keeping with the tenet from Jesus - "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall inherit the earth."

wait....

OMG!! Jesus was a socialist!!

aaaahh - cognitive dissonance warning!!

execute Plan B.

....

"He's not really an American!! Where's his birth certificate..."

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

what exactly has he done to win the nobel peace prize?

he's done an outstanding job not being george w bush. and posing for photo ops. and....... not making a decision on afghanistan..... and...... i guess that's it.

now that the nobel committee has established this criteria, i've asked my employer for a raise based on the argument that i'm not as crappy as my predecessor.

Originally Posted by bryantm3

the fact of the matter is that those that are running the nobel committee have become notoriously left-leaning, and they think obama is the biggest lefty socialist to be elected president in america yet, and they want to give him a trophy. what a bunch of garbage.

SFW? it's a private fund. they can lean however far whichever direction they please. they don't have to be fair, it's their own private money.

i was with you on the criticism of obama's do-nothingness, but this is just stupid whining. like when the conservatives cited "freedom of speech" when miss california was denied a crown. learn the difference between public and private before you boo-hoo about it.

[cured]

Originally Posted by the mongoose

P.S. When you guys click on the Obomber the Moon thread to see what a looney batshit baby I am, read the other shit I say near the end about Miss America hopefuls and Super Bowl rings. I think that shit is relevant to this discussion.

Stuff you said or stuff you read from somewhere else, thought it was awesome, and then came here and represented it as your own?

Anyway, I agree with Deckard:

Will this hinder him?
Yes. Certainly in the US, where - short and long term - it seems to be perfect ammunition for ridicule. Which is a shame, because it's normally something to be immensely proud of. Overseas, will it hinder him? Only if he fails to live up to expectations, which is not unlikely. If he some day becomes known as a warmonger, the award may come to be viewed with the same disdain as Kissinger's.

To what Sean said, I read another interesting thing on Sullivan's blog awhile ago, which paraphrased went something along the lines of "Conservatives revolt because they feel they're the only ones fit to govern." At this point they really are reaching for anything. They're keenly aware that any positive remark or representation of anything Obama does will be replayed endlessly 2-3 years from now when the presidential TV ad campaign picks up. They never want to appear weak. Unfortunately, they haven't come up with any proposals that make any sense or that change the status quo.

How to raise revenue for the government? Cut taxes.

How to handle the housing crisis? Cut taxes.

How to get spending in control? Umm...cut taxes.

I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP cheered on another hurricane Katrina so they could blame the troubles with helping local residents on Obama. They're really the opposite of what they say they are; the GOP puts party first and America a distant second.

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by cacophony

SFW? it's a private fund. they can lean however far whichever direction they please. they don't have to be fair, it's their own private money.

i was with you on the criticism of obama's do-nothingness, but this is just stupid whining. like when the conservatives cited "freedom of speech" when miss california was denied a crown. learn the difference between public and private before you boo-hoo about it.

caco-taco (that's your new nickname), i do know the difference between public and private groups, such as the boy scouts, who are private, and caused an uproar when they denied gay members to join. i'm not complaining about 'my tax dollars' going to anything— i just feel like the nobel committee has had a long standing precedent of rewarding those who advance society, make peace, etc, and awarding obama prematurely was a bad call, just as i think the boy scouts not allowing gays is a bad call. nothing i can do to change it, but it's a valid topic for discussion.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

oooooooo, I love those too.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...a%3DN%26um%3D1

[Sean]

Interesting take on the prize awarded to Obama that a friend just passed on to me...


Nobel Peace Sparks War

By Patricia Williams
Oct. 21, 2009

Statistics show that there is a marked uptick in the amount of genuinely hateful yammering one finds in public and political discourse. "Interactive" media are all well and good, but there does seem to be a recurring motif of pointlessly fulminating ping-pong, no matter what the subject at hand. Someone writes an article. Some readers like it, some readers don't. At first they fling praise or invective at the author, but soon they're calling one another political poopy-heads and snarling about who's stupider than whom. Then it goes from being accusative in the singular (you're an idiot) to the stereotyped plural (your kind are all idiots).

Rush Limbaugh has applied this schoolyard Punch and Judy narrative to every topic he touches. But it has also been spread by "reality" TV and extends from Jon and Kate to Congressman Joe Wilson. Donald Rumsfeld was masterful at it, and George W. Bush used it to suck the air out of every diplomatic space he entered. As a national discourse, it's silly and uninformative. When elevated to the level of international relations, it has been disastrous, as clichés like "You're either with us or against us" have shown.

I say all this because I think that the art of diplomacy is something that has become largely invisible to us in the United States. We value directness, even where it insults someone; we want instant responses, even where answers don't come easily. Diplomacy, a carefully choreographed ballet with words, is quite foreign to our perceptions of the world. We tend not to think about strategies of approach and deflection, negotiation and accommodation, patience and translation, and care in choice of words combined with pointedly applied pressure.

This was certainly evident in the response to President Obama's having been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Lots of sniffing about his readiness, lots of disparagement about his "pretty words" and "empty promises." And then, of course, the formulaic fights: he's a wizardy warlord with the power of hypnosis! He's a dangerous con man whose only gift is charisma. You're wrong! You're wronger! Dope slaps all around!

It's helpful to consider exactly why President Obama was cited. It was given to him, said the Nobel judges, for his having "created a new climate in international politics." "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future." Indeed, Obama has brought the United States back to the status of the most admired nation in the world, based on a survey of thousands of people in twenty countries around the globe.

Some commentators have chalked this up to Obama's silver tongue, as though great oratory is inherently about smoke and mirrors, emptiness and hype. But what Obama has done is nothing less than steer our huge ship of state back from the brink of "preventive war" and economic free fall. He restored competing theories of constitutional interpretation. No longer is the executive branch battling in a different textual universe: between due process and none at all; between the courts and images from 24; between privacy and supersurveillance; between accountability and official holes of dark secrecy.

These are serious accomplishments, with pragmatic consequences. As just one small example, after Obama was elected 1.6 million South Africans registered to vote. Maybe that just doesn't matter to many Americans, but diplomacy is the art of creating a geography where citizens and their leaders can develop means of negotiating with one another. Around 90 percent of Britons, French and Germans believe that Obama has affirmatively changed the course of diplomacy and that the United States is now a superpower that listens. The guiding question, the committee reminded us, was, "Who has done the most to enhance peace in the preceding year?" To enhance peace--that's the standard. It is not the impossible metric of ending all wars, of delivering peace on earth, right now. The committee summarized its conclusion succinctly: "Who has done more than Barack Obama?"

So how do you turn that into a negative? The headline in the Chicago Tribune read, "Europeans Honor US President for Not Being Bush." The New York Times sniffed, "Normally the prize has been presented, even controversially, for accomplishment"--making it quite clear the editors thought Obama had accomplished nothing at all. Everywhere, it seemed, the prize was described as "a political liability," "a mixed blessing," a "poison chalice," a reminder of the "gap" between his "star power" and "actual achievements." The prize was figured as somehow devalued by the choice, as though when this man enters the space of the world's highest honor, the property values fall. It was suddenly a European socialist foreign thing rather than a global honor, and therefore one more sign that Obama is not one of "us."

Whether or not Obama was your personal pick, the Nobel Peace Prize surely confers honor on our president, on America's reputation and on us, the people. Among left and right, there's a kind of shortsightedness of ingratitude and a failure to acknowledge the degree to which Obama's carefully constructed rhetorical interventions have created a new diplomatic space.

The words of an American president matter. The executive power is nothing more than the ability to craft policy, guide action, provide direction--all with words, and all with consequences for the future of the world. So Obama's Nobel Peace Prize is something all Americans should feel good about, a reassurance that we are moving toward a light, a globally hailed goal of prosperity and nuclear disarmament. It speaks to the unfortunate power of our "It's a Good Thing! It's an Evil Thing! Slimeball! Sucker!" habits of thinking, however, that not a single US newspaper I could find had a headline with anything as simple as: "Congratulations, Mr. President! Congratulations to Us, Every One!"