President Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for attempting to change the direction of diplomacy. According to the New York Times:
The U.S. president Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize
“for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international
diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” the Nobel
Foundation said in Sweden on Friday
The President says he is humbled.
.
I thought the Nobel Peace Price was about accomplishments, not attempts at accomplishing something. Am I wrong here?
It does seem a bit early. Nominations for the prize closed in February. That means he was in office less than 1 month when he was nominated!
Actually, Obama was President for 10 days before the nomination period closed (Feb. 1st) All of the actions cited by the Committee took place after the nomination closed.
As they stated, one of the Committee’s primary motivations was to show their support for Obama.
Nevertheless, I am proud he is our President and I’m proud to be an American. Today’s a great day for our country.
I have no opinion. I just posted it when I heard it. I had to wait a few to find out why. President Obama makes the third sitting president who has been awarded the Nobel Prize. Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and now Obama. Carter was awarded 22 years after he was president.
Geraldo is pointing out the good points of this award. He feels it is good for the United States. Obama was awarded for his efforts rather than accomplishments.
The question people should ask themselves is: Were you surprised to hear that Obama won? If so, why were you surprised? That ‘gut check’ should tell you if you genuinely feel that President Obama did more than anyone else on earth to advance the cause of peace in 2009.
Speaking as a fairly conservative person who detested Bill Clinton, Clinton was and is more deserving for his work both in Northern Ireland and the Wye River than Obama is to date. The Wye River meetings were the closest efforts yet to get an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. (Much closer than Olso which led to the 1993 Peace Prize award to Arafat among others.)
President Obama may be deserving of the Peace Prize in time, but the Peace Prize should be given out to reward and recognize actual accomplishments, not talk. There’s plenty of talk in the world about peace, but far too little practical results. Clinton would have been a better pick. Or if 2009 wasn’t a particularly good year for peace, don’t award the prize this year. (They sometimes skip a year if it’s been a bad year for peace. eg. 1938-1943 no prizes were awarded.)
One theory I heard is they wanted to give Obama a bit of a boost in his efforts to promote peace – and by awarding him the prize early on instead of after the fact it might help do that.
hmmmm, I am somewhat perplexed to be honest. I will have to read more before I can formulate my opinion.
It has been awarded now. My feeling is, if it enhances America’s standing in the world, then great. I won’t look a gift horse in the mouth.
For that matter, 2 awards could have been made. I would always like to see Bill Clinton awarded. He not only has done much towards peace, but he also has made many humanitarian contributions.
I do not shy away from the significance of Obama’s election so soon after the Civil Rights Movement, but this is a bit early in the story to call it a victory for world peace. In any case, being President of the United States and getting the Nobel Peace Prize is kind of like being a winning the lottery and then getting a promotion at work.
Does anyone know who the other nominees were?
The full list of nominees will not be released for decades, but the two people that were considered front runners were:
Morgan Tsvangirai of Zimbabwe, an opponent of Mugabe who entered into a power sharing agreement with him to avoid a civil war and economic chaos. (or should I say even more economic chaos that was already in Zimbabwe)
Hu Jia, a Chinese human rights activist who has been working for democratic reforms in China for many years.
There were a little over 200 nominees this year, but only about 20 or so that are taken seriously. The President of the United States is nominated almost every year (Clinton and Bush 43 were nominated every year of their Presidencies) but Obama was not considered to be a serious contender this year.
I must say, the more I think about this, the less I support it. It’s great that it went to an American, but there are many Americans who have done more to promote peace than Obama has so far. That’s not a criticism of Obama, it’s just that he’s been in office less than a year. Imagine if LBJ had gotten the Peace Prize in 1964 for his plans to defuse tensions with the Soviets after the Cuban Missile Crisis. How silly would that have looked by 1968 with the Vietnam War going in full force?
Holy ca ca! I can’t believe that. I mean, he did a lot in terms of Civil Rights progress and is a true symbol of Civil Rights progress for African Americans. On the other hand, was he awarded as a President or as a Civil Rights leader?
This is fab for the U.S. however, especially because our reputation has been so tainted since we’ve engaged in the Middle East.
I believe the thought process was he extended his hand if ‘they’ unclench their fists. I think it was just a different tone on the diplomacy that did it, at least that is what I have gotten off of TV.
It’s stupid, which is in keeping with most of their selections.
Obama is continuing and has continued most of the policies of “warmongerer” George W Bush. The only tangible thing he’s done is to “talk more”, which doesn’t affect the way the world works or alleviate anyone’s suffering, but it can get you a Nobel prize.
Do you want him to pull troops out of both countries immediately? Talk about de-stabilizing the entire middle east.
This put Obama in an uncomfortable position. He has to know that he hasn’t really accomplished anything specific enough in the first month of his presidency to merit the award yet. I think he was probably embarrassed. Perhaps they should have waited a year. However, I think he was very smart and handled the whole situation with a great amount of grace:
“To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize,” Obama said in brief remarks at the White House. “I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.”
That was an extremely gracious thing for him to say.
I agree! That was gracious.
He won… be happy… congratulate him. It’s nice to have the world respect America again… it’s been a while (about eight years, to be exact).
Personally, and as a Scandinavian, I am embarassed. It’s actually outrageous. If they wanted an American, Hillary Clinton was a thousand times more deserving. But most Scandinavians are infatuated with Obama.
This is a blot on the Norwegian Peace Prize committe, IMO.
Why not a prize for both of the Clintons?
The New York Times did a good background piece on the selection… I agree with their thinking.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/world/10oslo.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
President Obama, now that you’ve won the Nobel Peace Prize, what are you going to do next? Why, I’m going to send 20,000 more troops to Afghanistan. I figure they won’t see it coming!! ; )
I’m reminded of when Milli Vanilli won the grammy for best new artist!
Carter, Arafat, Obama……yep, sounds about right!
So it was a preemptive award, based on nothing more than a few good speeches. The man made no sacrifices, took no risks. Totally political selection that has no more significance than the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.
My first reaction was “Huh?” Well, more power to him.
Hyprocrisy hits a new low in the land of the Red Circle. It seems Delegate Paul Nichols was involved in some traffic altercation down in Dare County back in 2006. He was accused of assaulting a cop which could be something as minor as arguing. Wasn’t BVBL a big supporter of the same Paul Nichols back in 2007? Apparently Greg didn’t do his homework since he supported this guy over a year after the incident.
The arrest record is firmly in hand. However, no one is able to produce a conviction. Innocent until proven guilty must be out the window on BVBL. Obviously Mr. Nichols involvement was dismissed and the officer is no longer employed by Dare County. Anything to win an election.
Nichols’ opponent Rich Anderson might want to check on the people he has in his ad on BVBL since he is digging up dirt on other people.
YOU ARE WRONG IN YOUR JUDGEMENT. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA HAS TOURED ALMOST THE 7 CONTINENTS IN THE WORLD CAMPAIGNING FOR PEACE IN WORLD. THE AWARD IS FOR HIM AND HIS TEAM AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. WHO NOMINATED HILLARY? DOES HILLARY GO FOR MISSION AS A PERSONAL AGENDA OR IS SHE REPRESENTING HER AUTHORITY. I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS. PRESIDENT OBAMA IS GOD SENT. OPEN YOUR EYES TO SEE WHOM YOU HAVE AS YOUR PRESIDENT. HE IS HANDSOME, SMART, INTELLIGENT, AND FULL OF WISDOM. WHAT IS KILLING SOME OF YOU IS ENVY AND JEALOUSY. HE BROUGHT A CHECK OF 1.4 MILLION HE MAY DONATE CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION TO HELP THE POOR AND YOU ARE NOW SAYING NO THAT IT SHOULD GO TO ANOTHER COUNTRY. YOU NEED TO GO TO HOSPITAL FOR TREATMENT IN YOUR MEDULLA OBULANGATA.
Even one who is an Obama sycophant has to admit that Obama did not “win” the award, but was GIVEN the award. Richard Cohen likened Obama’s selection to a high school junior being picked as valedictorian based on his intention to ace every course during his senior year.
Anytime someone wins an award at the expense of more deserving individuals, it does harm. If you are worried about respect for the U.S., then the president receiving an undeserved award could have just the opposite effect. It can foster resentment by those who have actually done something for the cause of peace.
The President’s response was not all that gracious, despite what others have said. Admitting that the award is not deserved is not gracious, it is simply acknowledging the truth. The truly gracious thing to do have would been to decline the award politely until something tangible had actually been accomplished.
Kelly, you argue semantics. President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, regardless of an American straw poll as to whether he deserved it or not. This recognition elevates the United States in the eyes of the world. It is much less expensive to convince the nations of the world of your point of view through dialogue than to drop bombs on them.
I see very little difference in saying our president doesn’t deserve this award and the Dixie Chicks’ much publicized gaffe. When the foreign reporter threw a shoe at my president I was outraged. George Bush was our president. Barack Obama is our president regardless of who voted for him.
It does no such thing. It shows that European leftists love Obama — gee, what a surprise!!
I am sorry that you cannot see the difference between publicly disrespecting our president in a foreign country when war is imminent and simply stating that a Nobel Peace Prize nomination for a president two weeks after taking office and award for a president nine months after assuming power without any major accomplishments (no peace treaties, no prevention of nukes in N. Korea or Iran, no program to ensure the rights of women in Afghanistan, nothing at all) is undeserved.
Our president may yet accomplish something great, but there is certainly nothing to date. I would argue that his actions vis-a-vis Iran make large-scale war in the Middle East more likely (Bush was not much better, but he didn’t win the Nobel Peace Prize). Let’s hope that Obama claims his prize before Israel attacks Iran — that could easily turn into a major conflagration.
Disrespect is disrespect. Europeans read American newspapers.
Americans do not throw away their first amendment rights when leaving US soil. Whether we agree with the Dixie Chicks or not, I will respect their right to say what they said, as I spect your right to belittle the US President for his award that he did not seek.
I believe ‘Obama sychophant’ sets the tone. I am sorry you cannot see the similaries. President Obama is the United States president and right now, he is on the world stage. We can grouse and grumble that he was elected or about his policies but when we say our own president should not have been given a prestigious award like the Nobel Peace Prize because he lacks experience, wasn’t in office long enough, blah blah blah , then yes, we are dishonoring him and our country on the world stage.
Our opinions may differ. That is the neat thing about opinions. While they may be based on facts, they ARE opinions, and neither of us is right or wrong.
I doubt that we will ever be able to ensure the rights of women in Afghanistan, regardless of who is in power. That is simply something that must come from within.
So let me get this straight. If one believes that the President does not deserve an award and states so publicly, then that person is somehow being disrespectful to the President? I have the utmost respect for the Office of the President, but surely proper respect does not demand that citizens muzzle their public disagreement if the President wins a prestigious, international award.
I could see how it would be disrespectful to insult the President while debating the merits of his winning an award. That was basically what the Dixie Chicks did: they stated that they were ashamed of the President. There is a big difference between stating that you disagree with his policies and stating that you are ashamed of him. One represents respectful dissent, while the other represents disrespect of the President.
The term ‘Obama sycophant’ refers to my (lack of) respect for certain Obama supporters. You know who they are: the ones who swoon upon meeting Obama, the ones who believe that they will get free gas and rent, the ones who voted for ‘hope and change’ but lacked the faintest idea what that meant, and the ones on the Norwegian committee who believed that merely changing the tone is enough to merit the Nobel Peace Prize, among others.
Dixie Chick lead singer Natalie Maines said in a concert in London that she was “ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas.”
I think arguing publically that he or any sitting president is undeserving of the award is disrespectful in the eyes of the world.
I don’t care who disagrees with policies of what president. That is specific and not a general statement of unworthiness.
We can all agree that Natalie Maines’ statement in London was very disrespectful.
I take exception with your characterization of this debate as a personal attack (i.e. “… to belittle the U.S. President”). You are making it very personal. My belief is that Obama’s record thus far does not merit the Nobel Peace Prize — he has accomplished exactly nothing. But a critique of a president’s record is not the same as personally attacking, insulting, or belittling the president.
If you believe criticism of his record is disrespectful, then we will just have to agree to disagree.
It pains me to be viewed as disrespectful of the president, but it certainly will not mute my criticism. As others have noted, there are other Americans who are far more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize. The Norwegian committee lost its way sometime between its selections of Arafat and Gore.
These are certainly Orwellian times when in true Newspeak fashion Obama is lauded as the person most deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize, only 9 months into his first term.
Call me crazy, though, Natalie Maines is a cutie, and I don’t like country music anymore, but they have more talent than you can shake a stick at.
Slow, they are sort of ‘high country.’
I don’t have a problem with someone like Maines telling theor fans that they’re ashamed of Bush. I was ashamed of him, and am ashamed of Obama. When a celebrity says it just to draw attention to themselves or play to the European bias I might think they’re being a tool.
It’s disrespectful to question if President Obama is undeserving of the Nobel Peace Prize?!? Is it disrspectful to suggest (as I have in previous posts) that President Clinton was more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize? (because doesn’t that imply Obama was less deserving?)
I believe that our board interpretation of the First Amendment is one of the things that is respected about America, even if it is sometimes not wisely used. Are you really suggesting that rational debate over Obama’s qualifications for the Nobel Peace Prize is disrespectful in the eyes of the world? If Americans freely discussing a major news topic in a civil manner is disrespectful in the eyes of some, I’m not sure I want their respect.
The Nobel committee is a private organization free to choose whomever they want using whatever criteria they want. They chose Obama… get over it.
If we really want to “give peace a chance” we should (IMHO) support our President, be proud he has been recognized by the world as perhaps changing the course we were on, and be supportive of his efforts. We only have one President. John McCain set the right tone as the loyal opposition (a model of conduct we tend to forget in this Country.) I suggest we get on board with Senator McCain and celebrate with the rest of the world.
I would also suggest the alternative would be too simply (a more profane sentiment crossed my mind) keep quiet and let the rest of us revel in America’s moment. It’s nice to have the world regard us as stepping up to leadership again.
Is that where mastery of the Caps Lock key is located?? The Medulla Oblongata??
Good Lord.
While Obama gives peace a chance following all those inspirational speeches during his apology tour, Iran has been busy working on its nuke program. Since America is a leader again (as defined by Norway) and has changed the international tone, it will be interesting to see how long it takes for Russia, N. Korea, Venezuala, Iran, China, and various transnational terrorist groups to stand down and submit to Obama’s will. It is obvious that this will happen sooner or later, given Obama’s proven powers of persuasion (re: Copenhagen with the Olympics coming to Chicago).
Kelly3406,
Anything over Bush and Cheney will be an improvement. Bush left this Country at the “bottom” politically, economically, internationally, and every other -ally. There’s no place to go but up… so he can’t lose.
Slow-‘shrug’ I don’t know what that was all about. We are not approving any more first time moderations until we get some technical difficulties straightened out. An upgrade didn’t upgrade as it should have.
Kelly, does it really matter who gets the Nobel Peace Award? Most of the population barely pays attention and most of us haven’t ever heard of the recipients.
The previous poster you quoted needs to get up to speed with his medical terminology. That part of the brain just controls automatic functions like breathing, heart beating, etc. Has nothing to do with any kind of behavior, which I assume he was trying to direct a comment at. Then again, as you say – in his case maybe it might help him find the caps lock key.