Previous Entry Share Next Entry
happy
yesthattom

President Obama awarded the Nobel Peace Prize

I'm gonna go out on a limb here but...

Yes, he's spent the last 5 years trying to clean up "loose nukes" and it was ignored by the Republican Noise Machine because it was damn effective. It should have been front-and-center of his campaign, but the media ignored it.

Yes, he's brought new civility to international relations in these last 9 months.

But the real reason that I think the Norwegians gave him the award is that he successfully spent 8 years peacefully overthrowing a dictator. After 9/11 he saw Bush become a tyrant and the Republican Noise Machine give him the backing that let him retain power. He realized that this kind of tyrant wasn't going to be overthrown through a old-fashioned election, and he was against using violence. So instead he was left with one choice: pick the smartest, hardest working people, empower the grassroots, and one by one win over voters until he's won the election by a large enough margin that it couldn't be questioned.

Some people say that we need voter fraud reform to prevent 'another Florida debacle'. Well, Obama's couldn't wait, so he fought hard and make sure the margin of victory was bigger than the margin of Republican fraud.

There were many obstacles that had to be overcome to overthrow this dictator. First he had to win a Senate seat. That looked easier than it actually was. He had to win and stay clean in a town known for corruption. Then he had to overcome the powerful psychological force called "the inevitable". Convincing people to support a "presumed nominee" like Hillary Clinton was "impossible" but he did it. After overcoming that obstacle, he still had to overcome a strong negative campaign of lies from The Right. He had to overcome the racism of our country. Like a good action movie, there are always 3 obstacle between the hero and the goal, and then there is a surprise at the end that he has to contend with. This was no different. Sarah Palin appearing was a surprise which could have lead to a total defeat. Instead, his campaign smartly "fought the problem when it was small so you don't have to fight it when it is big." By discrediting her from the start, she was never able to recover. She became the joke of the year instead of the vice-president of the country. She became a dead-weight when she could have been the saviour. Lastly the world's finance system collapsed. While he kept saying "there's only one President at a time", he knew that Bush was ill-prepared for the challenge skill-wise, and already checked-out mentally. He and his people worked behind the scenes on preventing the capitol markets from collapsing.

Once officially inaugurated he traveled the world. Some said it was a victory lap, done for reasons of ego. No, it was to get face-time with world leaders to say, "Hey, Bush is out. He's gone and so are his disastrous foreign policies. Let's get back to business. There's literally a world of pain that needs to be fixed. Let it begin again... together."

That's 8 years of work that truly deserves a prize.

  • 1
Wow, that's the most convoluted rationalization I've heard yet.

It's essentially saying, "he got it because he's good at getting himself elected." Oh, and as a bonus, he does it without breaking the rules. That's right... "not breaking the rules" is now the pinnacle of human achievement.

Look, I'm not saying he couldn't have earned the award over the course of his term in office, but at the end of the day, SNL had it right - he's done two things so far, "jack" and "squat", and it's very very premature to be giving him a Nobel. (Especially when you consider that when the nominations closed, the Inaugural champagne still had a bit of a chill to it!)

Matt Lauer had it right this morning which was "he got it for not being George Bush", but that's NOT what the Peace Prize is supposed to be about...

Exactly!

It is a reason that only non-Americans can appreciate.

You saying that Americans are stupid? :)

When I saw the posts about this, I checked to see if the links were to The Onion or similar, because this is like giving you or me the prize for literature on the basis that we've written some books and, who knows, one day we might write some really good novels.

The other good thing about it is at least it's not quite as bad as giving it to Kissinger was.

(Deleted comment)
Those people were at least WORKING TOWARDS the goal. What's Obama actually *doing* towards the goal of peace? Not just talking about doing, but really and truly *doing*?

Being subtle. Talking, not shooting. Evaluating before acting.

He's doing everything that Bush didn't do. Like think.

The problem with Obama's achievements is they're of the variety that doesn't create parades and headlines. There's no AHA moment where a signature is done, a button is pushed, or a check is written that folks can point to and go "See? THATS action!"

It's a flaw. The american populace, and particularly the conservative wing puts so much weight on 'action', that when they don't see big kabooms, they think nothing is being done.

Looking beyond Fox News headlines, Obama's been the most effective president in recent history.

Except that the Nobel Prize is given for work done IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. All Obama did in 2009 is campaign for an election. For all the stunning lack of achievements so far in his presidency, they're surpassed only by the even greater lack of achievements (towards world peace) while he was on the campaign trail, stumping for votes.

Again - I'm not saying that one day he couldn't achieve it. But this is (to quote someone else I read somewhere else), this is like reading a couple paragraphs of something someone has written and giving them the Nobel Prize for Literature, because "some day, they have the makings of a great writer".

And, for the record, I'm not a Bushie by any stretch of the imagination, but even the left is looking at his record and saying "WTF has he DONE?" (Seen the SNL opening sketch from last week?)

(Deleted comment)
"All Obama did in 2009 is campaign for an election" -- Um, that's what my original post was about, wasn't it?

Now that it is 5+ hours later, we know that the nominations had to be submitted by Feb 1, 2008. This means it is a Norweigan way to say "fuck you" to Bush.

Someone said it better than I did. Look at the "My understanding is that while the Nobel Prizes in science are..." reply above.

Nominations come for many reasons, but the Norweigians who pick the winner a) aren't responsible for all the nominations, and b) don't care what the reasons were for nominating someone, and are free to use completely different reasons for picking the winner.

Although it was already completely obvious from both his Senate career and his campaign's policy documents, that he was committed to reducing nuclear weapons, and had already done good work on that as a Senator.

What they say they gave him the prize for: He's actively working to negotiate to reduce the amount and deployment of nuclear weapons in the world, with a real goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world, and he's doing it intelligently and probably effectively. And that's what they want to both highlight (because it hasn't gotten much attention, though I've been following it through my subscription to the Council for a Livable World's email list), and encourage.

IOW, I disagree with Tom here. I think this prize can be seen at face value.

When I read this post, I thought it was one of your satire pieces because I hadn't seen the news yet. :) I don't know that I think he actually DESERVES a Peace Prize just yet, though I do think he WILL eventually. What I find interesting is that, after we managed to elect Bush not once but TWICE, I think this boils down to the Nobel committee, and through it a chunk of the international community, trying to send the American people a loud message that says, "Yes, keep electing more Presidents like THIS guy! Please!"

Thanks!

24 hours of news cycle later, I think I'm fairly vindicated.

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account