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”.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

“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.”

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.

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?

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.