Today's
Nobel Peace Prize win for President Obama has taken the world by surprise, but the reasons for the President's win are valid enough. What's not valid? You guessed it, the Pretty Hate Machine is in full gear this morning attacking the President's win.
Jules Crittenden:
Giving the award to a president who is in the process of or on the verge of ceding to belligerents in at least three highly volatile geopolitical arenas neatly accomplishes that, and coming at the beginning of Obama’s term, will encourage people view his actions and their consequences in terms of “peace.” It also makes up for the gross slight to Neville Chamberlain in 1938.
Dan Riehl:
I do not freakin' believe this. But via the BBC- it appears to be true. For what? Are you frickin' kidding me? What a stupid joke. What a worthless award. Video of the announcement here. They put weight on his WORK? For Nuclear Weapons? All he has done is TALK! This is total BS! THE MAN HASN'T DONE ANYTHING!! I can't believe this. Really, I can't. What a waste. One sensed this was just a worthless political award anymore. But this removes all doubt. If I were on the committee I'd be embarrassed. This is an absolute disgrace.
TigerHawk:
Given Obama's objective lack of actual accomplishments so far, the "science is settled" that the Nobel Peace Prize is a hopelessly politicized popularity contest. Don't even try to argue.
Townhall.com's Matt Lewis:
The award could not have been given for accomplishments, but the committee did note in a citation that Obama has, "captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future."
It seems Obama was awarded based on zero accomplishments, but on lots of "hope" for the future ...
Two things: A sitting American President winning the Nobel Prize for Peace simply serves as proof that he's not killing Raghead Sunzabitches fast enough for this crowd.
It also means the same people who ruthlessly attacked the President for Chicago not getting the 2016 Olympics saying it was proof Obama has no real international standing are now doing exactly what they would have done if Chicago had won: attacking the event as a "popularity contest" that has no real meaning.
The only thing that has any meaning to these clowns is getting another war on. God forbid an American President does something like win a Nobel Prize, it just makes him a "narcissistic international rock star" or something, right?
It does not matter what this man does for America, the insane Wingers will attack him anyway. Everything they do is predicated on justifying the hatred they have for the man.
[UPDATE 7:45 AM] YAFB at Rumproast called it earlier this morning:
Since a major part of my reason for favoring Obama in last year’s election was the hope of at least a degree more civility from the US in international relations, I’m happy to see anything that rewards such behavior. Though, of course—to say the least—there’s much room for further improvement even at this early stage in the Administration (excuse the British understatement, and this is maybe something folks will want to explore in the comments). I may be a cynical old once-militant hippie, but after the horrors of the last decade or so, I never thought I’d live to witness the day when another US president said anything about nuclear disarmament except “maƱana” or “No fucking way.” It’s a start. Over the course of the day, I’ll be looking for prizewinning hyperbolic or full-blooded spit-the-dummy reactions from the blogosphere and other media. Do join in if you spot anything worthy of a facepalm, food for thought, or a hearty chuckle, and I’ll post the most noteworthy as updates.
Oooh! Oooh! Mista Kotter!
[
UPDATE 2 8:38 AM] On a more serious note and playing Devil's Advocate here, if the Wingers are
right, doesn't that mean that America's international standing and belligerent attitude under the previous administration was so dismal and such a threat to world peace that the Nobel committee gave a rookie President nine months in on the job the f'ckin Peace Prize for
basically being a sitting President not named George W. Bush?
And the guy really hasn't changed the worst of Bush's policies, either. We're still fighting two wars, and still detaining some "suspected terrorists" for eternity and causing a hell of a lot of collateral damage flat out killing others. And still this guy gets a Nobel Peace Prize because despite the killings and bombings and war, what he's done so far has been
considered that much of an improvement.What does
that say about how the world viewed America post-9/11 under Bush/Cheney?
[
UPDATE 3 8:53 AM] Attaturk at Atrios's place
thinking the same thing:
I guess Krauthammer was right, the international regard for the United States has so fallen after Obama became President that they just awarded our Chief Executive the Nobel Peace Prize -- probably for not being like Charles Krauthammer.
Amen to that.
[
UPDATE 4 9:03 AM] Josh Marshall
also agrees:
But the unmistakable message of the award is one of the consequences of a period in which the most powerful country in the world, the 'hyper-power' as the French have it, became the focus of destabilization and in real if limited ways lawlessness. A harsh judgment, yes. But a dark period. And Obama has begun, if fitfully and very imperfectly to many of his supporters, to steer the ship of state in a different direction. If that seems like a meager accomplishment to many of the usual Washington types it's a profound reflection of their own enablement of the Bush era and how compromised they are by it, how much they perpetuated the belief that it was 'normal history' rather than dark aberration.
He won because he's managed to not kill the planet yet, and
people expected us to have done so by now. My goodness.
[
UPDATE 5 9:35 AM]
NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof makes a logical, legitimate argument as to why Obama really should not have won the award.
He’s been largely absent on Sudan, Congo, Burma and global poverty and health issues, and doesn’t even have a USAID administrator. I think he has the right instincts on these issues and expect him to get engaged, but shouldn’t the Nobel Peace Prize have a higher bar than high expectations? Especially when there are so many people who have worked for years and years on the front lines, often in dangerous situations, to make a difference to the most voiceless people of the world? I think of Dr. Denis Mukwege at the Panzi Hospital in eastern Congo, or Jo and Lyn Lusi at the Heal Africa Hospital also in eastern Congo, or Dr. Paul Farmer of Partners in Health for his tireless work in Haiti and Rwanda, or Greg Mortenson traipsing all over Pakistan and Afghanistan to build schools, or Dr. Catherine Hamlin working for half a century to fight obstetric fistula and maternal mortality in Ethiopia, or so many others. In the light of that competition, it seems to me that it might have made sense to wait and give Obama the Nobel Peace Prize in his eighth year in office, after he has actually made peace somewhere.
Which I can accept, October 2016 would make sense. I also like the sound of Obama's "eighth year in office", but that's another thing.