quote:

At any rate, this is an empty, meaningless "award." Like I said earlier, nothing but a door prize. I can't imagine any reason anyone would be excited or significantly proud that he won this. A complete non-issue, in my opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

And probably not an entirely welcome story while on the cusp of decisions about Afghanistan.

"Peace Prize winner honored for getting people talking again sends 40,000 combat troops to Afghanistan"

That should play well.

K.

quote:

"It would be wonderful if I could think why he won," said Claire Sprague, 82, a retired English professor as she walked her dog in Manhattan's Greenwich Village. "They wanted to give him an honor I guess but I can't think what for."

quote:

Hospital worker Itya Silverio, 33, of Brooklyn, said: "My first opinion is that he got it because he's black. What did he do that was so great? He hasn't even finished office yet."

quote:


Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who won the prize in 2002, said Obama's win showed hope he had inspired globally.
"It is a bold statement of international support for his vision and commitment to peace and harmony in international relations," Carter said in a statement.

quote:

"Obama gives speeches trashing his own country and he gets a prize for it," said conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who has a wide following.

quote:


Political blogger Jon Henke tweeted: "So far, the right, left and media all seem to agree that the Nobel Peace Prize committee just beclowned itself."

quote:

"It looks less like an objective award than it does a political endorsement," said William Jelani Cobb, a history professor at Spelman College in Atlanta.

quote:

"This is the Nobel committee giving Obama the 'you are not George W. Bush' award," said Brian Becker, national coordinator of Act Now To Stop War and End Racism. "Unfortunately Obama is continuing many of the same policies of Bush and is in fact expanding the war in Afghanistan rather than ending it."

quote:

In Chicago, retiree June Latrobe, 68, was also nonplused. "In all candor he hasn't done anything yet," he said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I strongly believe that the Cheneys of this world are wrong, that an open dialogue with other nations is not a sign of weakness and kowtowing but an absolute necessity with friend and foe alike. We don't have to like what we hear, we don't have to listen to it, we don't have to change our attitudes and decisions based on it necessarily, but to make any kind of progress, now or eventually, we must have that dialogue. No, that doesn't mean we should seek to placate our enemies, and no, it doesn't mean that they are just poor and misunderstood. It does mean that without dialogue, only force is left. Dialogue doesn't remove force from the table, but relying on force alone limits our strength quite considerably--especially in Iran and North Korea, where our force is insufficient (i.e., we invaded Iraq because we could...not so easy with Iran and North Korea, as the consequences and repercussions would be far more severe). If we can't even talk, we are the ones unreasonable.

Much of the rest of the world feels this way (especially Europe), so it's not surprising that Oslo does. Obama opened the door to the possibility of a real change from an eight year era of frigid relations with friend and foe alike--again, a policy isolation that I believe is foolish, dangerous, and short-sighted. We aren't as all-powerful as we like to fantasize. Being part of the discussion serves us much better, even when we disagree with the direction of that discussion. We should at least be there to say so and why, willing at least to listen to alternative proposals, if not necessarily accept them.

So a tiny corner of the world decided to take $1.4 million and use their only chance at a large stage to express their congratulations on a change in policy, a change that they apparently strongly believe is crucial to peace in the world.

Are they right? And is this a good use of the Prize? That's all fair game for debate. But they're also well within their rights to do with it as they please--and they have.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
So what has Obama done that demonstrates his liberal/lefty principles, then? Closed down Gitmo? Withdrawn from Iraq? Repealed the Patriot Act?

quote:

ORIGINAL: housesub4you
I mean I'm no fan of Tom Delay, but if he won Dancing With The Stars, I would have at least said congrat's

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

At any rate, this is an empty, meaningless "award." Like I said earlier, nothing but a door prize. I can't imagine any reason anyone would be excited or significantly proud that he won this. A complete non-issue, in my opinion.

I can't agree, and before folks pile on, I'm telling you all it's for political reasons. Readily and openly admitted. Here's why.

I strongly believe that the Cheneys of this world are wrong, that an open dialogue with other nations is not a sign of weakness and kowtowing but an absolute necessity with friend and foe alike. We don't have to like what we hear, we don't have to listen to it, we don't have to change our attitudes and decisions based on it necessarily, but to make any kind of progress, now or eventually, we must have that dialogue. No, that doesn't mean we should seek to placate our enemies, and no, it doesn't mean that they are just poor and misunderstood. It does mean that without dialogue, only force is left. Dialogue doesn't remove force from the table, but relying on force alone limits our strength quite considerably--especially in Iran and North Korea, where our force is insufficient (i.e., we invaded Iraq because we could...not so easy with Iran and North Korea, as the consequences and repercussions would be far more severe). If we can't even talk, we are the ones unreasonable.

Much of the rest of the world feels this way (especially Europe), so it's not surprising that Oslo does. Obama opened the door to the possibility of a real change from an eight year era of frigid relations with friend and foe alike--again, a policy isolation that I believe is foolish, dangerous, and short-sighted. We aren't as all-powerful as we like to fantasize. Being part of the discussion serves us much better, even when we disagree with the direction of that discussion. We should at least be there to say so and why, willing at least to listen to alternative proposals, if not necessarily accept them.

So a tiny corner of the world decided to take $1.4 million and use their only chance at a large stage to express their congratulations on a change in policy, a change that they apparently strongly believe is crucial to peace in the world.

Are they right? And is this a good use of the Prize? That's all fair game for debate. But they're also well within their rights to do with it as they please--and they have.

quote:

But if they're going to step so far outside the parameters of their own criteria to award the prize on such tenuous and illusory grounds, one of the results is going to be that I'm going to have a much harder time taking their selection process  - and, therefore, the award - seriously in the future. Which is a shame, because I think this represents the abandonment, the cheapening, of a rather lofty and noble principle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

Erm Pending...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

what I heard of Obama's acceptance speech even acknowledged that it in no way reflects accomplishments, although he didn't offer to donate it, which I think he should have.

You know, I heard that too... and when he said that he didn't deserve it, I found myself genuinely liking the guy. But when he continued, his voice changed as he explained why he was going to accept it anyway. And I found myself feeling that I had just listened to a man's ego triumph over his humanity. It was a let down.

But, so be it... bring on whatever's next.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Obama is escalating the war in Afghanistan. And Al Gore (another "winner") favored extraordinary rendition... and he also favored Clinton's bombing raids.

And Ronald Reagan's efforts lead to the end of the cold war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

Isn't that just because republicans have this tendency for warmongering which contradicts the idea of a peace prize?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

~ Fast Reply ~

Obama Presidential Inaugural January 20th - Nobel Prize nominations deadline February 1st

Eleven Days in office and he wins!

Whether this speaks to the qualifications of the other candidates or not -

Congratulations!

It represents the accomplishments of President Obama perfectly. Award winning rhetoric generates the appropriate reward. Looking back, those first 11 days have represented the best of this administration. I'm happy to see all those accomplishments recognized even if its been all down hill since.

There HAS been enough time after all!

BTW - Contrary to the rumors going around on the internet, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did NOT come in second as a result of his stated policy of wiping Israel off the face of the earth. Although the members of the Nobel committee did agree that would be the best method of insuring peace in the middle east.

quote:

Sure, it's their call to make and their award to give, and it's not my place to criticize them for it. It doesn't affect my life in any way. But if they're going to step so far outside the parameters of their own criteria to award the prize on such tenuous and illusory grounds, one of the results is going to be that I'm going to have a much harder time taking their selection process - and, therefore, the award - seriously in the future. Which is a shame, because I think this represents the abandonment, the cheapening, of a rather lofty and noble principle.
ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda