Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize Doesn’t Bring American Partisan Peace Ceasefire

Actually, the Peace Prize (a left-wing play-pen PC and celebrity award and related annual Political Statement by leftists in Europe) left even many lefties today so far scratching their heads at why it was awarded to Obama, as well as leaving even many of them admitting that it is being done for political reasons (including being an anti-Bush trophy or award in recent years) and slighting others who actually merit more, serious, recognition and congratulations than Obama's flashy appearance and good words.

What the GOP and Dems and the media (like fleas) in DC are doing isn't representative of the rest of us.

"promise and potential"

Even this is a false pretense, if claimed by the Committee, since even the mere idealism of the nuclear-free silliness (as opposed to deliberate Western and Israeli disarmament, which is deliberate and which is pathological as well as malevolent), the anti-nuclear silliness that was listed by the Committee, is not anything real or serious, just PC silliness. (No, the truth, the science and engineering, the "genie" will not disappear foverver merely if some idealistic fools say it should, because they find them too icky.)

I am no Obama lover. I would even vote for Alan Keyes or Ezola Foster over President Obama, and I voted for Kerry in 2004. And frankly, if President Obama were to actually do something that actually promoted peace, I would support the award. Frankly, I think President Carter ranks up there with Presidents Pierce, Buchanan and Harding for low quality of Presidency, and yet, at least Carter had tangible accomplishments for which the Peace Prize was deserved.

It just amazes me how political and rabid this committee has become from the days when those with actual accomplishments won the award, and had a body of work behind them. Cf. the awards to Wilson, Carter, King, Kissinger, et al.

President Obama didn't look overjoyed at winning the award. Guess he felt all the "pundit love" out there!

"In reality, even Obama supporters can raise questions about this award, since it is clearly being given on the basis of promise and potential versus solid, perceptible accomplishments to date."

********
That is a patently false statement except the "perceptible" part. You have NO idea the lashings he has taken behind closed doors, the threats, the subversion and the daily undermining of his efforts that few presidents to date have had to tackle to such a degree while undoing the EXTREME MESS the last "administration" left us with..

Well maybe you're aware of the daily undermining; but the behind-doors stuff is no laughing matter. The Nobel Committee and other people more aware of Obama's plight in the covert-power world are well aware of how deserving of the Prize he is. Just because you, the average american, aren't being allowed to be as aware as they, don't assume they've made a mistake.

He deserves the Prize. Mark my words. And I believe that history will reflect that he among all the others may have deserved it more than anyone else when you weigh the impact of his not standing up to Cheneyco and what that may have done to the world in these most critical of times. The stakes couldn't be higher.

Well done Barry!

In fact, just two days ago my daughter and I were discussing the horror of imagining where we would be if the latest rendition of puppet governing [continued to be run by Cheneyco.] were to have succeeded last year. My daughter said that with the stress, old Mc Cain would've kicked the bucket by now or been incapacitated and then Caribou Barbie would be at the helm touting "go get 'em" and "you betchas" until we were impoverished and 14 year olds were fighting the ever-mounting battles born from total lack of diplomacy on behalf of the enterpri$ing fringe right.

Just think about Cheney pulling strings behind Palin for another eight years. If you can keep the vomit from coming up in your throat, you can be very glad that Obama is where he is and is standing up to them even when you can't see it on the six O'Clock news..

"And frankly, if President Obama were to actually do something that actually promoted peace, I would support the award."

The thing I've always thought about is, someday, somehow, somebody actually manages to get the Israelis and their enemies to reach peace, at least official recognition of Israel and termination of the state of war they still have with that nation. That would truly merit the awarding of the Prize, for once, and of course would change the Prize from being a PC political statement to an actual peace award.

Actually Joe, I think you are wrong. Overall the criticism of this award has been fairly bi-partisan. Even a significant portion of the Left thinks this was absurdly premature.

"Even a significant portion of the Left thinks this was absurdly premature."

In fact, this is where there is a similarity with Polanski. Even many lefties refuse to defend Polanski.

Obama was probably as surprised as the rest of us by this. If anything, the award (and the circumstances of its award to him this year, now) is an albatross.

First, I think that the prize was awarded because of the change in tone in our foreign policy that occurred immediately following Obama's Inauguration. Instead of unilateralism, Obama's style is more congenial and relies on diplomacy instead of force. That in itself is an important step towards world peace.

I'm not saying whether he deserves it or not, but mocking the man for winning makes as much sense as mocking him for losing the Olympic bid.

We certainly sat by during the Bush years with our mouths open as we watched Presidential Medals of Freedom passed out to those whose actions led to anything but--- Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Paul Bremer, and Tommy Franks. What did they really deliver besides botched intelligence leading to a botched war effort?

I agree with you, AR. It's not uniformly bipartisan, of course, but there seems to be more comity (and comedy) across the partisan lines of the blogosphere today than there has been in a long time.

From George Stephanopolous comes this roundup of jokes. Admittedly some of the funniest ones are obviously from right wingers (skim the comment section- there are several hilarious lines there), but even Ezra Klein got in on the snark.

It won't matter what president Obama does or doesn't do, he will continue to be a target of those narrow (and predictable) folks who have have sought to demonize him right out of the gate. The naysaying will continue independent of what he does or doesn't do, regardless of context, meaning, or the big picture. The Obama=Bad mantra is what matters, forget the rest. Oh btw, I understand he just gave the 1.3M prize to charity; there was undoubtedly some subversive, socialist agenda prompting that decision. So it goes...

"Actually Joe, I think you are wrong. Overall the criticism of this award has been fairly bi-partisan. Even a significant portion of the Left thinks this was absurdly premature"
*******
Then as I said, a significant portion of the viewing public is wilfully or otherwise in the dark. Obama has stood up to pure evil in ways you'll never be allowed to know.

Larry Neal's remark is the best I've seen so far, and may remain so:

"The earth and I are more like cousins than actual friends, but I have to admit that it and the sun did a darned good job with the tomatoes in my back yard this summer. I can assure you that represents a decisive break from the past. I don't expect a Nobel for my bright promise of next year's tasty Beefsteaks and Early Girls, but now that they've started giving Nobel prizes for good things that could happen in the future, I'm as eligible as the next guy, right? As for now, well, I'm no Hendrick Danckerts -- who is? -- but I'm still a little disappointed to be overlooked. I even think they knew about my plans to build a shed."


And next best is this, from Iain Martin:


"Think about it, it's so post-modern: a leader can now win the peace prize for saying that he hopes to bring about peace at some point in the future. He doesn't actually have to do it, he just has to have aspirations. Brilliant."


The foregoing are not only good, but real and refreshing, in contrast to Al Gore's statement:


"I think it's thrilling that President Barack Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I think it's an honor for our country -- it's an honor for him, first and foremost, but it's a honor for our country. I think it’s extremely well deserved. I think that much of what he has accomplished already is going to be far more appreciated in the eyes of history as it has been by the Nobel Committee in their announcement early this morning.

Just to pick one example, I think it'll take some time before people put together all of the different moves that linked his speech at the United Nations on the phasing out of nuclear weapons, his shift on the missile defense program in Eastern Europe and the movement of Russia to join an international consensus that confronts Iran with the need to abide by the non-proliferation treaty. I cite that as only one of the examples that was included in the Nobel Committee's statement this morning.

Another of the examples they used was his success in changing the way the world is approaching the climate crisis -- the climatic challenges, as they put it -- now confronting the world."

"You have NO idea the lashings he has taken behind closed doors, the threats, the subversion and the daily undermining of his efforts that few presidents to date have had to tackle to such a degree while undoing the EXTREME MESS the last "administration" left us with.."


Of course we have an idea of the lashings he has taken behind closed doors. EVERY President takes those lashings. It comes with the job. So very little sympathy for something that is in the job description.

You are right, however, he does have a lot on his plate. Whether he deserves the award, that's not my judgment call, it's the Nobel Committee's. I'm proud as an American that he won the award. But to award it for what he is "going" to do is (as put in another thread) like awarding the price for medicine to a researcher that is "beginning" his work on a cure for cancer. He is, however, working toward peace even if I don't agree with his tactics at times. It's a start, huh?

May God bless the President, provide him with further wisdom, and help him lead the nation in the correct direction. That is part of my daily prayers.

It makes me wonder what happens in other countries when a leader unexpectedly wins this kind of prize-- are his countrymen proud? Ecstatic? Excited? Or do they dissolve in a derisive rant about how he didn't deserve it, was an affirmative action pick or expand on how the prize and accompanying honor are meaningless.

I've heard all this three times- first for Carter, then for Gore- now for Obama.

It makes me wonder what happens in other countries when a leader unexpectedly wins this kind of prize--

Since everyone around the world pretty much agrees that this is unprecedented (and I'd venture to guess that there aren't likely to be any future picks like this), we will probably never have any other examples to compare to.

And what keeps conservative Americans from feeling pride about the three picks that you mention is that they were all pretty transparently done to give GWB the middle finger. If liberal Americans can cheer on the Nobel committee for making the award into that kind of political jab at a president of the US, then it's hard to see why conservatives should feel 'pride' over this.

"And what keeps conservative Americans from feeling pride about the three picks that you mention is that they were all pretty transparently done to give GWB the middle finger."

Wow, don't tell me you're one of those right-wingers who actively seek out opportunities for feeling attacked or accosted. I know you are upset that "your guy" never amounted to anything, but don't try to pretend he is the fulcrum around which all left-wing minds rotate. I don't think you understand just how deserved the ill will directed against GWB was and is. He invaded a nation on non-universalizable grounds - that's an evil act, something only a low mind could conceive and defend.

Rewarding attempts to spread peace effectively, whether actively or not, is by default an insult to Bush and his incompetent, ideological ilk - those three picks antagonized GWB by virtue of being made at all, because they reminded him and his supporters that there are people who actually accomplished a few missions.

The awarding of a piece prize is automatically a snub of the receivers' detractors and antagonists, and considering how most of Obama's detractors cheered and defended the extremely poor handling of a just war and the intensely committed allocation of resources to a completely unjust and evil war, that snub is important in and of itself. Many of Obama's detractors would, given the chance, make the world a worse place - GWB's pathetic foreign policy modus and the ongoing defense of it by said detractors prove it.

When the selection of Obama is questioned by people who aren't fused with their armchairs and also know what "peace", "reality" and "accomplishment" really entails, send me a text, would you guys?

Congratulations President Obama. I hope the award will encourage him to stand true to his convictions and not bow to political expediency, especially when it comes to cleaning up Bush' foreign policy clusterf**k.

Whatever.

We'll just add another shining recognition of Liberal superior ideology to our well adorned trophy room.

Conservatives can sit within their bleak fortress and continue to complain.

Why attack Obama? He didn't ask for or even lobby for this honor. I would think all Americans would be happy for any fellow American who wins a prestigious international honor. Who would the conservatives have win this reward? Putin, whose eyes Bush gazed into and knew instantly that they were soul mates (or whatever Bush was feeling the good vibes on)?

The Nobel awards for Obama and other liberals may demonstrate that the international community recognizes that conservatives have recently emphasized the doctrine of American exceptionalism, and used it to justify imperialistic invasions of sovereign nations.

Liberals tend to see the US as a world leader but more importantly as a citizen of the world, with common interests. That is why Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have been wildly popular overseas, while George W Bush was wildly unpopular.

CS- Why are conservatives still behind Bush? He wasn't a success by liberal or conservative standards. It makes no sense to keep defending his failed administration. He bankrupted the US with tax cuts and
2 long expensive, mismanaged wars.
If you look at approval ratings for the last 2 presidents in European countries- Obama's are in the high 80's or even low 90's - Bush's are about 11-27% There's no way to build alliances with those kind of numbers.
If the Nobel's have been given out to criticize Bush, that is indicative that he was even more unpopular internationally than he was at home.

If George W Bush HAD won this prize, would conservatives admit that it was a travesty? I seem to remember another undeserving recipient-- Henry Kissinger.

"Why attack Obama?"

It's the award, of the PC play-pen "Peace" [sic] Prize, that has been attacked, not Obama.

Even lefties have attacked this award, because it was more silly (obviously anti-Bush again, and this year possibly Obama-cultist, too) as well as shallow than ever this year. It was a bigger joke than the joke it has been already for so many years (which is why it correctly is being derided more than ever this year).

It's the nature of the fringist-minority attempts (which fail) to defend this award, and attack the criticism (and those who criticize and deride that which obviously merits criticism and derision) which is so very questionable.

"We'll just add another shining recognition of Liberal superior ideology to our well adorned trophy room."

If you want to keep it lasting long, be sure to use Armor All on those rubber sides.

If its true that the award process is being attacked and not Obama, why has the GOP capitalized by running a major fund-raising effort?

What it comes down to is that most liberals believe in world leadership by example, and attempt to reach consensus whenever possible. Many conservatives believe in American exceptionalism, which they feel gives them the right to reject multilateralism.

Of course, Obama is going to be treated like an international rock star, because he changed the tone of our foreign policy from the disastrous "Cowboy Diplomacy". Even George W. came to regret some of the statements he made following 9/11, making US forces into international bounty hunters. The world community is grateful that we have returned to a time when International law was respected and not flouted because of our "exceptionalism".