It's a dreadful shame that the figure you use is accurate for the behavior of so many; there ought to be a decimal point included.

“Rachel Maddow … “Mind Over Chatter””

False advertising!

One could argue whether such iconic reach ought exist or not. I think one can only say such matters exist for oneself, or not. For you, they do not… but they may in some ways quite differently, depending on who inspires you and why. For me, I see holiness in various people. I also have a strong bs detector for phonies who bleat.

You may be right, I dont know the timbre of the people on the Nobel awards committees… they may not value holiness, or potential, or leaders' reach by decent intents, either. But, some may. We'd have to meet them and speak to them privately, in order to know.

dr.e

One religion's “holy” is another religion’s sacrilege.

“holy” is completely irrelevant regarding the Nobel Peace Prize.

“The right-wing’s idiocy about Obama’s Nobel win is no longer even interesting.”

What interests me about Joan Walsh, and most others defending Obama's Nobel, is the pretense that it's only right wing idiots who can't fathom the award. It also seems telling that she, herself, opines that this honor is a measure of the Bush Administration — a “legacy” which is trotted out at every turn to explain any lack of progress on any front, despite any of Obama's other efforts.

Aung San Suu Kyi is proving a popular choice in the Symbolism vs. Achievement competition as well, most bluntly summed up by a BBC guest professor who observed that Aung San Suu Kyi got a Nobel Prize and she didn't achieve peace in Burma either! Maddow makes the lack of success argument, too, but I doubt that either she or Walsh would characterize that heroic woman's efforts as “small.” When one of the Nobel committee members said outright that Carter's prize was intended as a slap at George Bush, I'm not sure why a certain skepticism about the politics of the award is unwarranted. I remember thinking what a shame it was to demean the Carter honor in such fashion. Personally, I think it was actually less about Bush this time around.

When it comes to turning tides, I'd suggest that the American electorate did that at the polls, and how long Obama can continue riding that wave is anybody's guess. As with the Nobel, his disappointed critics on more than one issue hardly hail exclusively from the right. To Maddow's point, I'd note that George W. Bush persuaded a lot of people to elect him too, in the middle of the wars she mentioned, and that GWB, himself, had his share of critics on his own side of the aisle. Once again, the pretense that Bush's critics on the left were uniformly calm, cool, and collected simply doesn't pass the laugh test any more than a flat denial that Obama derangement simply doesn't exist would.

As a minor aside, I doubt that Sarkozy would be any more likely to express official surprise or reservations over the choice of Obama than Democratic leadership here would.

I saw your link over at JustOneMinute and enjoyed your post here!

JM Hanes

Obviously the Nobel Prize for Literature would go to someone who produced literature worthy for that reward. However peace is an ongoing process. Entering into treaties is not enough because countries (like the USA did under the Bush administration) can break them.

Because much of the World views the President of the United States as the most powerful (and influential) figure in the world, I think many people are glad to embrace an American President who they feel will listen to them. Or perhaps they are just happy that there's not a trigger happy president, like Bush, who will threaten their country if they don't do what he wants.

So I think the Nobel Peace Prize given to Obama is meant to put Obama in a more powerful negotiating position when it comes to dealing with other countries. After all it is a prestigious honor. As an example, if Obama stands up to leaders who trample their people, Obama will be seen as more authoritative than other leaders because he does have the peace prize. Part of having that prize is world recognition that he wants to promote peace.

Given that the Republicans claim the president should stand up to other world leaders one would think the GOP would be happy that Obama has another tool in his chest to help the interests of the US.