The wires are ringing with the news that the Nobel committee in Oslo has awarded the 2009 Peace Prize to US President Barack Obama, mentioning nuclear non-proliferation, climate change action, focus on international diplomacy and cooperation and for "captur[ing] the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future."
The pick is quite a surprise, given Obama's relatively short stint on the international stage, but the Nobel committee emphasized that the pick was made on Obama's record, not his potential for the future.
The justification for the prize, while certainly unexpected and a bit tenuous, is indeed rooted in fact. Obama has long been a booster for non-proliferation, and his speech and lobbying at the UN General Assembly and Security Council proved to be quite successful.
On climate change, the Obama administration has taken the toughest line against carbon emissions of any White House so far in terms of concrete regulations by Federal agencies. The September announcement by the EPA that the agency would begin to regulate CO2 as a pollutant, verified by the Supreme Court in 2007, was a major step towards US action on the climate change issue. Though cap-and-trade or other large scale programmes are clearly the purvue of Congress, the executive branch's efforts in the realm are likely to be a major portion of the US effort.
Regarding diplomacy, the committee was likely in part referring to the re-elevation of Susan Rice's post, the US Ambassador to the UN, to a cabinet level post, as well as his public addresses and promised strategic changes toward diplomatic action over rapid military decisions - such as Iran. The G5 plus one meeting with Iran, where Undersecretary of State Burns officially met with the Iranian negotiator, and found a way forward on nuclear energy processing was the first concrete outcome of this strategy.
In the US realm, this is a great boost for the Obama foreign agenda - which certainly played into the decision by the Nobel folks. While the US political scene is often quite skeptical of the international community, the Peace Prize is a quite lauded affair. Even major Obama detractors will have a bit of hard time criticizing his win, especially after their poorly received revelry of Chicago's olympic demise. For Obama liberal supporters, it is a bittersweet moment --many have criticized the administration's foreign policy for moving to the center, particularly on war issues, and the Peace Prize designation takes a great deal of air out of that balloon.
Perhaps the happiest people in the US on this one will be the centrists - and those who wanted Obama to reshape the US image abroad. Whether the award is warranted (too soon? too uncertain?) or relevant (peace prize as we're discussing escalation in Afghanistan?, for the leader of the largest and most powerful military force in the world to be awarded a prize for peace and diplomacy is quite an interesting development.
---
Renard Sexton is FiveThirtyEight's international columnist and is based in Geneva, Switzerland. He can be contacted at sexton538@gmail.com
10.09.2009
Obama's Prize for Peace
@ 6:29 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
325 comments
Cue the people claiming it's a conspiracy, or that the Nobel folks are simply Obama apologists/dittoheads.
Do I think it's a bit soon? Possibly. But I also think his efforts deserve to be lauded.
It just goes to show just how much the Bush Administration lowered the bar.
Worst President Ever.
Woah, I'm getting a strange unfamiliar feeling here. It's sort of the opposite of shame so I guess that makes it Not Shame.
Well, well, well. Look who's come crawling back, begging for forgiveness. It's the international community.
Mr. Obama will consider accepting your "Peace Prize" if you rescind the awarding of the 2016 Olympics to Rio and give it back to its rightful host, Chicago. Also, Paris should immediately be renamed "Barackland," or perhaps "Barack-n-Roll City." And don't ever let it happen again.
what Mike B. said. (laughing)
In an interesting way, this may compel the President to engage others in a different way then he otherwise would. As a Nobel Peace Laureate, he'd have a harder time, say, bombing Iran (I'm mean, engaging in a “controlled physics experiment” in Iran). I’m not saying he ever would, but if things reached such a point, it may be harder for him to do so. Because the President is a human, I’m sure it’ll affect his thinking on some level, though not necessarily one he’d be conscious of. Perhaps it’s an ingenious plan by the Norwegians subtlety mess with his head.
Mike B, is that a Simpsons reference, the "not shame" part?
Not to geek out on everyone, but if it was a Simpsons reference, it should be "less shame." (Aw.)
Just sayin.
Does he get another one when he ends one of the wars, closes Guantanamo, or actually stop someone from developing a nuclear weapon?
IMHO, the Peace Prize has lost much of the cache it once had by becoming overly politicized. I hope and believe that one day, Obama will be lauded internationally for bringing about a more stable, safer world. He still has a very, very long way to go though.
To me what this does is cost the Nobel committee some credibility. I am an Obama true believer- I'm just thrilled that he's my President- but there is no way that he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. That's just ridiculous. There is no one out there in the world who has done more to promote peace? Come on. I give a big second to mrralph- he has huge promise, but a long way to go.
How any of you can suggest that he deserves this, with a straight face, is beyond me.
This says it all:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6867711.ece
The only thing more absurd than this award is Sexton's suggestion that it will help Obama domestically. It merely confirms that nagging feeling that the widespread good feeling about Obama is built on a foundation of sand.
i'm with Jeff - and i volunteered for Obama! as my friend asks:
Who am I? I command a military force of more than 500,000 troops, I'm in charge of more than 4,000 nuclear warheads and my military budget is more than $600 billion. That's right: the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize!!
It will be a nice prize for him if he now goes on to earn it.
sadly, I think this will lead to an awful lot of immediate pushback against both Obama and the Nobel Prize committee. A lot of what I've been hearing can be summed up as "he's not done anywhere near enough, the nobel prize is a joke". It may, sadly, increase a perception of Obama as lauded abroad and vilified at home, and otherwise out of touch with the American people.
Ridiculous, I know, but that's how I see it being spun.
The award citation makes it reasonably clear that it is at least as much a b*tch sl*pp*ng for Bush as it is praise for Obama.
'Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts.'
Which frankly seems a pretty good use of the award.
But its a simple equation, is the world more peaceful and safe than it was 12 months ago, or it would have been if last Novembers election had a different result?
Um, Jeff - your comment doesn't seem to disagree with anything - carryover from another blog?
Can this get any more pathetic?
First Al Gore and now Barack Obama, neither of whom have ever brought or helped bring peace to any part of the world.
The Nobel Peace Prize as now officially degenerated into nothing more than a cheap ploy to influence American policy.
Soft power indeed!
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one to think that this is a sticky Gold Star for participation.
Probably would have been better to wait another year but this gives the right another chance to root against America.
To be honest name another person who deserves it more? Any names come to mind? Anyway it's worth the right wing outrage and what i'm sure will be another day of running down America.
Hopefully Obamacare will cover exploding heads!
Even major Obama detractors will have a bit of hard time criticizing his win, especially after their poorly received revelry of Chicago's olympic demise.
That's kind of different, though. Even a couple of liberals here are saying, "You know, he doesn't really deserve it just yet."
There's a lot of back and forth, though. At the risk of sounding like I'm drinking a huge jug of the Kool-Aid, he did do quite a bit with regards to getting America in line with the rest of the world. Bush-era foreign policy seemed to be heavily based in giving the middle finger to the other 6.2 billion people on this rock, and Obama's rightly done a lot by actually putting down the saber for the first time this decade.
He has a long way to go, yes, but he has come quite a bit.
Not only that, Renard, you of all people (as a regular contributor) should know that we can twist anything to Obama's detriment. I mean, he could give a puppy to each person in the United States, and I guarantee you Rush would be on the air the next day bloviating about how it'll increase the deficit, how he's killing Grandma (if she happens to be allergic to dogs), and how Obama didn't even consider the wishes of those of us who hate dogs.
Even if it was an opt-in program.
This is soooo going to piss off the neocons. The guy that ran against their President in 2000 and the guy that succeeded him both won the Prize. Like bookends. Kinda highlights what's missing in the middle there, doesn't it?
This morning, NASA is bombing the Moon. Carl Jung would be pleased to hear that his theory of Synchronicity is going to play out on live TV, as Bill O'Reilly's head is going to explode at roughly the same time.
This award is like the Gold Glove given to Rafael Palmeiro for a position he almost never played; there've been worse awards, but none so fundamentally absurd.
As for the left on Afghanistan, Barry now has the sanction of the world's intelligentsia to keep doing exactly what he's been doing- keep the troops in Iraq, keep reinforcing Afghanistan as necessary, keep Gitmo open, and keep the Patriot Act completely in force. Clearly, none of those things were the problem with George Bush.
Listen, just because there are people who think this was undeserved (including some Obama supporters on this board, shockingly enough) doesn't mean they are rooting against the USA, anymore than seeing the President stumble in Copenhagen as an example of his hubris biting him in the the butt. Sometimes a thing, a thought, or an action is simply what it is.
It was said, when people disagreed with Pres. Bush, that dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Being patriotic doesn't mean blindly following the policies of the one in power. Some people stay true to their principles instead of getting weak in the knees gooey over a pretty face and some pretty words.
If the President's policies and actions ACTUALLY lead to a more peaceful world, then this award will be deserved. At this point, I agree that it is simply the international community giving the US and the President a pat on the head for falling into line with the rest of the world, even if only in word and not actually in deed. I, for one, think that he can go on paying lip service to peace and unity, as long as he stays "in it to win it" in Afghanistan and Iraq and keeps the prisoners in GTMO.
And given that past winners include Al Gore for making a movie and Yasser Arafat for basically agreeing to not kill people, does anyone really think that this award is anything other than a joke? It is funny that Saturday Night Live seems to have higher standards for the actions of US presidents than the Nobel Committee.
You know, he's a nice guy and all. But Henry Kissinger has one of these, too.
I really think these should be like the science ones often are. Awarded some years later.
P.S. I guess it was a slow year for peace. *shrug*
I heard on the radio that he was nominated for this award 10 days after his inauguration. Is that true?
If so, even weaker.
Sure Statler, the "neo-cons" really care about what the Nobel committee does. This is a body who celebrated Arafat and Kissinger, for crying out loud.
This is, in fact, basically the third "F-you" to Bush. Carter (which was explicitly framed as a "kick in the shin" for Bush), Gore, and now Obama. It's a pathetic obsession.
I heard on the radio that he was nominated for this award 10 days after his inauguration. Is that true?
That actually makes more sense to me than awarding it for what he's done since. Well except maybe for some follow through on starting to dismantle Gitmo and saying torture is a bad thing.
The world was uneasy about John "Gooks In The Trees" McCain, especially following Bush. But I don't that just's that. It is possible people in the US don't realize how big Obama's election was outside the US? Heavy symbolism.
He deserves for just changing the tone of the discourse. Look at Iran - Cheney attacked him but Obama has China and Russia on board with his plan - something Cheney was never able to do.
Would I have given it to him now? Probably not, but he does deserve it.
Three sitting US Presidents have won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Theodore Roosevelt won the prize in 1905 for personally mediating the peace treaty to end the Russo-Japanese war.
Woodrow Wilson won the prize in 1919 for helping create the League of Nations.
Barack Obama won the prize in 2009 for... Hmmm. No peace treaties, no peace negotiations, no creation of world bodies dedicated to peace. Well, the citation says: "Very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future."
Oh, I get it now! Obama is being recognized for his hope and change campaign commercials.
Bart-
He is being recognized for bringing the world back from the brink of Bush drive toward world war that was the misguided "War on Terror", which was really a war on a religion.
Bradford:
Obama is being recognized for his future surrender in Afghanistan?
For those who may have forgotten ... the nomination 10 days into his presidency makes sense if you consider his pre-campaign work with nonproliferation.
MultiModalMama said...
For those who may have forgotten ... the nomination 10 days into his presidency makes sense if you consider his pre-campaign work with nonproliferation.
You mean his promise to negotiate directly with Iran with no preconditions such as stopping its nuclear weapons program?
I'm sorry, this is just too much of a target rich environment for scathing satire.
MultiModalMama, where did this pre-campaign work with nonproliferation actually bear fruit?
In the words of Sideshow Bob, "Do they give a Nobel Prize for Attempted Chemistry?"
Bart-
Your satire is not scathing, in fact it is somewhat juvenile.
You mean his promise to negotiate directly with Iran with no preconditions such as stopping its nuclear weapons program?
"I'm not going to negotiate with you about you doing X until you do X."
Filed under "wut LOL no sereus?"
I didn't say the award made sense. I said the nomination could have been justified, however weakly, with the nonproliferation work.
If the nonproliferation stuff was the basis of the nomination, however, the failure to nominate others involve sheds doubt on the reasoning behind the award. Perhaps this is the Nobel Committee's way of saying "we give it to any of these other nominees and they will be tortured and killed"?
Dwight-
Great description of the Cheney negotiation style.
Do it or we will bomb you - the Dr. Strangelove approach to negotiation.
What's with attacks on Gore and Carter winning the prize? Sure it also pissed off Repubs, but Gore (not a public official at the time) had done a lot of advocacy work to alert the world to the problems of climate change and to help solve the crisis.
Carter was given sort of a lifetime achievement award for a life that was indeed spent trying (and occasionally succeeding) to bring peace to the world and to help the impoverished.
Obama falls somewhat short on these standards (though still more worthy than Kissinger). I truly hope he makes himself worthy of this award, and I believe that by the end of his presidency, all but the wingers will say that he has earned it. Still, we are not there yet.
Although I gotta chuckle at the thought of Rush choking on his cigar reading this news.
PS @ Bart
This is indeed a great environment for scathing satire. If you know anyone capable of delivering it, tell them to post here.
Seriously, this is at least the fourth Nobel in the last five years given basically as a He-Man Bush-Haters Club pledge pin, joining Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and Paul Krugman.
American conservatives are the Nobel Committee's Emmanuel Goldstein. They must be persecuted forever, and the less influence they have, the more they must be hated.
I'm a strong supporter of the president, but my first reaction was "WTF!" (excuse me).
If scientists could get the Nobel Prize for dreaming up the most promising experiments, rather than seeing them through, I might just be a candidate.
Doug-
I would like to introduce you to Dr. Stanley Prusiner...
(Prusiner won for essentially being the Orly Taitz of mad cow disease - he ended up being correct, but he was really guilty of ignoring strong contrary evidence and getting lucky) ...
...
It is amazing to me that people are acting like this is the worst decision the Nobel Committee has ever made.
First off why its not the worst, Kissinger got the award afting being complicit in bombing Cambodia back into the dark ages. Countless other 'terrorists' have been awarded the prize.
Now as for the pro Obama case, some of this is not so much awarding Obama as complimenting his tactics. One of the reasons the prize was set up was to promote peace, not specifically to reward achievements. The committee obvuiously feels that in awarding Obama for his tactics, for multilateral and peaceful diplomacy, and nuclear non proliferation it gives some indication that those tactics are the most likely to achieve peace, in the view of the committee.
In the circumstances of the world and the American Presidency when Obama became the President, it gives sharper focus to those tactics, given the contrast between Obama and Bush in FP style.
So yes, it seems a slightly bizarre choice, but in terms of promoting world peace, and doing entirely what the prize was set up to do, it is fitting.
I bet Glenn Beck has had an aneurysm though!!!
Renard,
The language choices of the Norwegian Nobel Committee are as strategic as the recipients of the Peace Prize.
In this case the committee, "attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons."
This vision and the efforts the President has and will put into achieving nuclear abolition are a far cry from non-proliferation, the high water mark for every US president since Reagan.
President Obama has put the world on notice. Nuclear weapons and humanity can not co-exist. The Nobel committee, through this award, is certainly taking a step away from tradition, but hopefully it is a calculated step towards a world without weapons of mass extermination.
Jacob said...
What's with attacks on Gore and Carter winning the prize? Sure it also pissed off Repubs, but Gore (not a public official at the time) had done a lot of advocacy work to alert the world to the problems of climate change and to help solve the crisis.
What does the promotion of green socialism in the midst of a decade long global cooling period have remotely to do with peace?
This was the first indications that the Nobel Committee was simply playing politics.
Carter was given sort of a lifetime achievement award for a life that was indeed spent trying (and occasionally succeeding) to bring peace to the world and to help the impoverished.
I can understand this as a sort of E for Effort award.
Obama falls somewhat short on these standards...
Unintentional scathing satire, that.
What does the promotion of green socialism in the midst of a decade long global cooling period have remotely to do with peace?
SUNSPOTS!!!!
:/
Jeff,
Well, I'm kinda glad, actually. I'd rather have impeached Bush, but Pelosi was too weak. This doesn't quite make up for it, but its a step.
Now, if we sent Bush off to the ICC to face war crimes charges, that would make up for a lot.
Jail to the Theif!
Blogger Bart DePalma said...
"What does the promotion of green socialism in the midst of a decade long global cooling period have remotely to do with peace?"
Nothing I guess,
But advocating serious investment in renewable energy and carbon reduction in the midst of a worsening global crisis that will affect food supplies, living space, etc has A LOT to do with peace and the general well-being of the world.
Your question is like asking "Why should Norman Borlaug win a Nobel Prize at a time of increasing world food production?"
Or bashing oncologists who believe that smoking causes cancer.
And on Carter, have you ever noticed that Israel and Egypt--two longtime enemies who have fought four wars of conquest since 1948--have had a stable diplomatic relationship for 30 years?
The bottom line is, this is an undeserved award. There are hundreds of thousands of people around the world who have spent their entire lives tireless working for peace, equality, and justice - Obama has a hell of a long way to go before he can stand next to any of them, and I say this as a foreign Obama supporter, exactly the kind of person this annoucement was supposed to 'represent'.
Here's a wee list for you:
1) He hasn't brought American troops home from Iraq or Afghanistan
2) He hasn't passed a cap-and-trade bill to fight climate change
3) He hasn't forced a halt in Israeli settlement expansion
4) He hasn't brought Iran back into the international community
5) He hasn't dropped sanctions on Cuba
Now I'm an optimist, and I'm sure he will get around to some, or most, of these things in time. But you never congratulate a politician on his promises, only his achievements.
In response to Stuart-
1) He has brought troops home, in fact I know a kid whose two year tour just got cut to four months and he has been promised no redeployment until 2011. As for Iraq, just leaving in one fell swoop will cause them even more instability, haven't we tortured that country enough?
2) We are closer to cap and trade than we have ever been and one chamber has/will pass this. I think it is a bad idea, but you are wrong on this point as well...
3) He CLEARLY deserves credit here, he has come out strongly against all expansion. What do you want him to do, bomb the settlements?
4) He is an anti-Iran coalition including China and Russia for the first time, and a quick commitment from Iran to allow us to inspect. Infinitely better position for the world than we had under Bush.
5) He should not drop sanctions on cuba. As soon as Catro dies Cuba will change significantly and that is the correct time to play the sanctions card.
Sorry Stu.
Sure makes a mockery of the peace prize, doesn't it? As if we didn't already know it was based purely on politics, not substance.
And here we go. Quaking with red-faced, sweating rage, the wingnuts frantically try to dismiss the Nobel Prize as unimportant and uninteresting.
Love it!
No, Obliterati, no rage at this, just sadness at the transparent patheticness of it. This isn't a revelation about the unimportantness of the Nobel Peace Prize, just ratification of what we already knew.
I don't know. I'm a supporter of Obama, but I just don't see what Obama has done compared to so many other people who are doing so much good right now for world peace. I mean, I was really expecting Bill Gates to win this year because at least he's been doing things.
Bill Gates is unlikely to win because of the negative view of his monopolization of computers has caused significant pain worldwide.
I've never understood why the Nobel Prize for Peace has been given such a lofty place.
It's no different than the Academy Awards or the MVP of the Super Bowl. A few people that think they know something get together a pick a winner.
The Nobel Peace Prize committee is made up of FIVE Norwegians.
One question: Given that even his supporters are saying "WTF?" do you think that this is embarassing for him? Specifically, do you think he, when woken with this news, said to himself "Huh? All I had to do was talk about peace, I didn't have to obtain it?"
I don't know. The President is intelligent and probably has a healthy self-image. Even he might acknowledge that this is like a participation award in YMCA soccer.
Lehman-
The response of the White House so far says they are florred by this, and probably did not want this (yet). Gibbs first, and only response I saw at dawn was "Wow".
While I applaud the idea and I am an avid (foreign) supporter of Barack Obama as POTUS, if he is the man I think he is, and if I were him, I'd would refuse the award, on the basis that the world and the Nobel Committee should judge him on his record after he has left office. This would enhance his credibility world-wide, and confound his critics at home.
I see a few possibilities here. One, Obamas decisions (as of yet unacted upon) to close guantanamo bay, withdraw from Iraq, along with (mixed levels of success) dealing directly with Iran and North Korea are truly the most noteworthy events of peace over the last year. This makes sense in that the state of intl politics with a hegemonic power means that all violence goes through the hegemon in some way. So when the USA takes steps away from conflict, it is immensely significant.
Two, perhaps the board seeks to use their labeling power on Obamas future actions. This was mentioned somewhere above, if Obama is a Nobel peace prize winner, then how can he engage in conflict with Iran (was likely) or North Korea (much less likely)?
Three, it's a cheap shot at neoconservatives. Quite possible, though I think neocons have already begun to question their ideas of creating peace, which clearly did not work.
I'm out PEACE.
I am not an Obama fan, but I would love for all the trust that people place in him and the expectations of better things to come to bear fruit.
If his tactics with China, Russian, North Korea, and Iran work, then this is an award well-deserved. So I would love to see hm earn it. So it is unfortunate to see it given, because it is so OBVIOUSLY political (and another slap at Bush) rather than an actual award for his accomplishments.
I just think he would be embarassed by it. And not in the good "I don't do this sort of thing for an award" sort of way, but in a "I haven't done anything worthy of the award yet (with and emphasis on the word YET)" sort of way.
I think the expectations just ratcheted up a notch (and I didn't think that was possible).
Obama will lose the news cycle as people question whether he deserves it and it will help him in the middle and long term. It is very much an Obama prize.
Wow, what a great idea! Refuse the award, say you want to be judged on your record. Very noble and would really shut up those who are grumbling about his ego. It would also send the message that he is doing the things he is doing for the good of his country, not to be loved by the rest of the world. This is a no-lose scenario for him.
Of course, he will be forgoing the title "Nobel Laureate," which would be hard for anyone to turn down.
Even if Obama had never been POTUS he did loads of work to help rid the world of nukes. Obama has changed the course of history and should be awarded every prize on the planet for keeping McCain and Palin out of the White House.
Nathan,
That's just silly.
I generally agree that this award is premature. I'm happy about the sentiments of the Nobel committee, but honestly we should see how well Obama's approach to peace and multinationalism works after a few years (and I think he will continue to be an overwhelming success as a diplomat).
That said, one thought that I have not seen expressed here is who should have one. Other than Gates (and his attempts to monopolize the software industry are indeed troublesome despite his philanthropic work), who should have won the Nobel prize for peace?
And here's something to think about:
Wilson won the Nobel prize for proposing an international assembly that he failed to enter the US into and that failed to prevent the biggest war in human history.
Teddy Roosevelt won despite an overall record as a warmonger.
El-Baradei and the IAEA won despite failing to prevent the DPRK from developing a nuclear program.
Aung San Suu Kyi won and the world still pays no attention to the brutal junta in Myanmar.
Rabin, Peres, and Arafat won, and yet Israelis and Palestinians are no closer to peace. Arafat supported terrorism until his death and Peres just installed a far-right government in Israel.
Gore won and the climate crisis keeps getting worse.
Kissinger won despite supporting and executing meaningless wars throughout his life.
The point is that not all awards are given for notable accomplishments, but often for hope, for advocacy, for turning the attention of the world toward noble goals, and for fighting for a cause that is desperately needed.
Obama's award may be premature, and all of the above recipients may have been more worthy (except Kissinger), but it does not fly in the face of the spirit of this award either.
The smart move by President Obama would be to thank the Nobel Committee and decline the award–saying he wants to actually acheive progress before being honored. That would be gracious, humble and smart politics (both domestic and international).
My guess is he does not do that.
auto insurance quotes
Yes it was intended to be as silly as people in PJs telling the "Nobel folks" how to award their prizes or Presidents how to run their countries. The Nobel folks wanted to shock the world and show support for a trans-formative figure. The rest of the world seems to see change -- while people in the USA fear/doubt it. Personally I feel Obama has done enough to deserve the award.
I wasn't shocked by this at all, the same way I wasn't shocked when Chicago weren't REALLY a serious contender to host the Olympics. Rio: the first South American Olympics was too delicious to pass up for the IOC. I said months ago they should be considered the clear favorites. Fact is, Bush and conservatives (proven by their chearing for America's defeat) have pretty much destroyed whatever hopes America will have to host another Olympic Games in the next 10 years. If anything should have tipped people off, it was Obama being asked about how foreigners are treated in the United States.
Antietam in a sarcastic way kinda nailed it. This is to hold Obama to his promise of persuing peace, especially in the Middle East and nuclear disarmament, also to pull ou of Iraq and close Guantanamo. It was unanimous acknowledgment of what Obama had done so far and what he hopes to do in thew coming years.
It's also, in a clever way, to remind Obama not to get sucked too deep into Bush's Afghanistan mess.
BTW, Jeff, the delusional wingnut fuckwit that he is, of course links to Times Online, which is even more to the fringe fruitcake right than the newspaper. Both Times Online and World Nut Daily are of course HUGE favourites over at Free Republic.
The self-centered view most Americans, especially conservatives, have in relations to the rest of the world is the main culprit as to why most Americans feel Obama is undeserving of this great honor, when in fact, he definitely is worthy of it.
The total lack of dignity and respect in the Bush Administration's unilateral approach to "diplomacy" towards other nations severely undermined any efforts by the global community presenting a cooperative approach combating global warming, nuclear proliferation, territorial disputes, terrorism, human rights, etc.
With the election of Obama as President, his immediate implementation of a foreign policy centered on respecting and listening to other nations was a major achievement in itself.
Since then, Iran has agreed to talks with the US, Russia announced it will not deploy Iktar missles, US-Cuban relations have improved dramatically, the Iraq War will be over by 2010 and the United States has already begun troop withdrawals.
While their are others that deserved as much consideration for the Nobel Peace Prize, who else has done as much in a short amount of time? The Nobel Committee did not give this award as a token. Obama has ALREADY accomplished enough to deserve it.
With all of that said, it was still a surprise.
The world has seen through this man, Obama. They recognize that his vanity and ego supersedes all and they are using this to manipulate him in order to shape US foriegn policy.
How can Obama accept this and then turn around and send more troops to Afghanistan? How can he be Mr. Nobel and send our armed forces anywhere? America and it's interests, can now be attacked world wide with impunity.
One last note:
As I peruse the various blogs out there I continually come across a common theme. The supporters of "King O" are constantly making comments about how King "O" is out in the world cleaning up the mess GW left behind. Or they make reference to how the world see us now as opposed to when GW was in office.
First, let me make this statement:
Whereas before, the world may have seen us as cowboys, the now see us as cowgirls. And I'm not talking about Annie Oakley.
Second, I have to ask the question:
If King Obama is so great; why do people need to bash GW in order to prop him up?
Congrats to the Prez but I don't think they've done him any favors. This will raise expectations to a new level, will breed more resentment among his detractors, put more pressure on him to get something accomplished, and bring a harsher light to his failures.
And there is the perception that this is kinda like the teacher handing out grades before you've taken the test. For it to be meaningful, you have to earn your grade.
I agree with you Nathan, and further, I see this prize to Obama as, sort of, a prize to the world...
In the wash of unrelenting tides (pushed up from a fast-advancing future) that are dissolving -- like centuries-old sand castles -- the world's monuments to racial, cultural, religious, and national bigotries that have historically led to the opposite of peace; President Obama represents a unifying presence. By awarding this prize to him, and specifically at this time in his very new, and very obviously unproven administration, the Nobel Committee is acknowledging and underscoring (perhaps even subconsciously?) something much, much greater than Obama. It is marking a momentous, inevitable shift in world focus that is squarely on those crumbling sand castles by recognizing the unprecedented: that the planet's most powerful nation not only elected a black man, but a black man who understands and welcomes the approaching Tides.
We are experiencing a rather significant turn in world history; what better entity than the Nobel Peace Prize Committee to put itself on record?
Based on the statement given with the award, it appears Obama was primarily given the award for being black (or at least partially black).
"Only very rarely has a person, to the same extent as Obama, captured the world's attention and given his people hope for a better future," the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Thorbjorn Jagland, said in a statement.
Whether or not Obama accepts the award, he absolutely CANNOT go to Norway to do it, not on the heels of taking flak for representing US and international interests in Copehagen.
That said, Obama could keep the honor of the award but immediately donate the prize $ to an organization dedicated to peace and internationalism. I would suggest the IAEA considering his advocacy of multi-lateral disarmament, or perhaps to a group advocating that the US implement the Kyoto protocol, given his advocacy of international environmental standards.
I've never understood why the Nobel Prize for Peace has been given such a lofty place.
It's no different than the Academy Awards or the MVP of the Super Bowl.
:facepalm:
To think Fox news or anyone couldn't cast a shadow on the award is crazy.
Off the top of my head one could label Obama as more concerned about his image and getting credit abroad than the concerns of America an our people.
That aside what were they thinking. Congradulations Obama, but what value is the Peace prize if it is given to someone while they are in the process of doing something not having completed it.
Blogger Rudy said...
"Based on the statement given with the award, it appears Obama was primarily given the award for being black (or at least partially black). "Only very rarely has a person, to the same extent as Obama, captured the world's attention and given his people hope for a better future," the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Thorbjorn Jagland, said in a statement."
And how does that statement pertain to race exactly? Is it not possible that "hope for a better future" is not a coded message but actually means "hope for a better future?"
I agree that this award is probably premature, but do you really need to make this about race, or as your party is so fond of saying "playing the race card" (whatever that might mean)?
No question about it, Obama's been far more bolder and ballsier on foreign policy than he has been on domestic policy.
Last week, conservatives were ecstatic that America wasn't gonna host the Olympics. This week, they're outraged that an American President wins the Nobel Peace Prize. Pretty much tells you everything you need to know about the party of Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter and Hannity.
Second, I have to ask the question:
If King Obama is so great; why do people need to bash GW in order to prop him up?
:rolleyes: You called Obama "King Obama" three times in one post, and said he made Americans look like "cowgirls". After all that, you're seriously trying to take a self-righteous tone on bashing a President? If Obama is so bad, why do you need to make puerile insults to bring him down?
Based on just some of comments on here today, it appears quit a few wingnuts are having an exploding head day.
In all of their efforts to undermine, discredit, and outright bring failure to Obama's Presidency, THEY have failed miserably, and cannot understand why.
Blame it on the "librul media."
Jeez! Didn't anyone here actually READ the statement the committee released? Not to mention do any of you know how and why the Nobel Peace Prize is actually awarded?
Check your flies, your ignorance is showing
BTW, Rudy and his FReeptard ilk said the exact same thing when Gore won. They were aploplectic. So it doesn't matter if Obama had won this year or 8 years from now, the reaction would be the same.
I'm genuinely baffled and angered by how litle I have in common with the American 'left-wing'. Not a single one of my friends (some considerably more liberal/socialist than myself) have reacted positively to this announcement. As one put it "Morgan Tsvangarai wakes up every morning and goes to work with a man who was complicit in his torture. There's a f*cking statesman."
To think that 'being better than Bush' is an accolade deserving international congratualtion is laughable.
I'm all for giving him this award in 8 years IF he achieves anything. But I'd like you to imagine a Republican victory in 2012 with Guantanomo still in limbo, Afghanistan rolling on continuing to take young lives American and Afghan, a defiant North Korea and a hard-talking Ahmadinejad, with the world no closer to Middle East peace and ask you self "Does he still deserve it."
You might think I'm conjecturing, but no more than you guys are.
Smart comments by Obama.
The Nobel Committee does NOT represent Norway
It is important to let the world know that the members of the Nobel Committee do NOT represent Norway and the Norwegian people.
http://usladdet.blogspot.com/2009/10/nobel-committee-does-not-represent.html
"While the US political scene is often quite skeptical of the international community, the Peace Prize is a quite lauded affair."
You're kidding, right? Did you miss when Al Gore won? Conservatives don't have any more respect for the Nobel Peace Prize than they do for the UN. This definitely doesn't help Obama with the right.
Not apopleptic, Porridge, just saddened by one more indicator of the accelerating decline in substantive reason and logic in leftist politics.
I agree that this award is probably premature, but do you really need to make this about race, or as your party is so fond of saying "playing the race card" (whatever that might mean)?
Yeah, over on FreeRepublic, you can find post after post saying that he got the editorship of the Harvard Law Review, his Senate seat, and the Presidency just because he's black, and now he's got the Peace Prize just because he's black.
Then they turn around and get all angry when people say that some of the opposition to Obama is due to racism. "I'm not racist! I'm just saying, we all know that any achievements by black people are the result of the color of their skin and not personal merit!"
It's particularly hilarious given that the Republicans' last TWO Presidential nominees were demonstrably fuck-ups in school who got by because their daddy was well-connected. But hey, a person who becomes the editor of the Harvard Law Review, no, that's obviously just people handing out things to black people!
(Disclaimer: I agree that Obama probably shouldn't have won the Prize, but I don't think it's because he's black, I think it's because he scares the Europeans a hell of a lot less than Bush.)
Obama started talking to other nations, and ended torture as a national policy. He basically reset us back to where we had been for multiple Presidents before George W. Bush.
Basically this award says that the Bush/Cheney years were SOOOOO bad, that getting us back to our norm is worth a Peace Prize.
I don't think Obama really deserves it, but it does shine a bright light on a dark stain in U.S. history.
Lambchop said...
Didn't anyone here actually READ the statement the committee released?
Things did become clearer after than (and not in a "just 'cause he's black" way, Rudy :( ). Thanks for posting that dkarp.
@Bart DePalma:
What does the promotion of green socialism in the midst of a decade long global cooling period have remotely to do with peace?
A decade long cooling period? Here's the World Meteorological Organization on the subject:
The long-term upward trend of global warming, mostly driven by greenhouse gas emissions, is continuing. Global temperatures in 2008 are expected to be above the long-term average. The decade from 1998 to 2007 has been the warmest on record, and the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C since the beginning of the 20th Century. [...] "For detecting climate change you should not look at any particular year, but instead examine the trends over a sufficiently long period of time. The current trend of temperature globally is very much indicative of warming," World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General, Mr Michel Jarraud said in response to media inquiries on current temperature "anomalies".
The whole "we haven't warmed up any since 1998" thing is complete poppycock. 1998 was an off-the-charts-hot year. We haven't had one as hot yet. But as of 2006 (the year the table I googled was produced) 2001-2005 were the next 5 hottest years on record, and as of this year the WMO says the moving averages are still rising. So, if you're really that bad at stats, please pick a different blog to whine on. And if you're not that bad at stats, please stop lying through your teeth.
I'm surprised that nobody hit on the obvious: this award is for the work he did getting elected and preventing McCain and, most likely, Palin from running America and doing serious harm.
The crises and humanitarian disasters likely *averted* by his successful campaign may have been the most compelling reasons for the award.
Ironically, when it comes to Obama, conservatives and socialists are pretty much singing from the same hymn sheet these days. Both the far-left and the far-right attack Obama no matter what he says and does. It's unrelenting from both sides.
@Jacob, the indication of race by the committee was the use of the code words "his people." There's no reasonable inference that means US citizens generally, as it would be un-PC to wish the USA well. Further, it would imply that Obama was king or ruler, not an elected representative.
Had such a term been used by someone not in the leftist camp, people would be rightfully apoplectic over such usage, but today they're just letting it slide.
The committee clearly intended the racial reference.
This award really shows how Obama is viewed in the rest of the world, and how much his approach to diplomacy has already changed the world environment.
Here in America, with our parochial blinders and partisan bickering, we often ignore the rest of the world, and our impact on it. The previous administration certainly treated the world as being an unimportant antpile with which we could do whatever we wanted. This is a dangerous and stupid way for the most powerful nation on earth to treat other nations.
That Obama has recognized there is a world out there, and it is filled with actual people - there are other nations, and they have rights to sovereignty, too - there are enormous problems, and they will need the cooperation of all nations to solve them - just this simple change in attitude is enough to alter the world.
We can - and will - engage in our petty domestic sniping, and the right wing will simply scream all the louder now, and redouble their efforts to stop Obama's agenda. In fact, the right wing nutballs will use this award as a weapon - they hate the rest of the world, and will use the Nobel Committee as evidence that "yes, see, we were right! Obama really is a socialist! That's why other countries like him!" Mark my words, it'll be a fundraising gimmick for them.
But in fact, what it shows is that American policy abroad has a huge impact on the world, and on how the world works. Obama has already made the world a better place.
That we can't see it - that we can honestly debate about whether he "deserves" this award - is pretty sad.
"I will accept this award as a call to action." - Obama
Yes, yes you should.
"The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists -- the Taliban and Hamas this morning -- in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize. Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize -- an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride -- unless of course you are the Republican Party."
-- DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse
Keep it up!
The nomination window closed Feb 1...less than two weeks after Obama was inagurated. So he won for what, his work as the junior Senator from Illinois?
Or did he pull a Carter/Gore and win for being NotBush?
This award has all the significance of the fantasy football trohpy I won two years ago.
yawn.
Bart DePalma said... What does the promotion of green socialism in the midst of a decade long global cooling period have remotely to do with peace?
Decade long "cooling period"?
Waddya' know! Bart is just as ignorant as George Will on how to read a graph.
Maybe Bart needs to go back to high school to learn what a trend line is, and why a single high data point (1998) doesn't mean that subsequent years represent cooling.
[quote]Wow, what a great idea! Refuse the award, say you want to be judged on your record. Very noble and would really shut up those who are grumbling about his ego. It would also send the message that he is doing the things he is doing for the good of his country, not to be loved by the rest of the world. This is a no-lose scenario for him.[/quote]
You forget that in order to win the award, one has to be nominated. And as POTUS, how could he not have known that such a nomination was going to be written and submitted? How likely would he be to turn down an award for which he agreed to be nominated? This would be excellent fodder for the wingnuts.
No, as undeserved as this award is, he has to accept it. And as he accepts it he has to recognize the people in his State Department (as in "Hillary Clinton probably deserves this award more than I do, but I wouldn't let her staff submit a nomination.")
Brooks that is the stupidest thing I've read on here. And that is saying something. According to your reasoning he won for simply preventing another Republican administration. So by that logic, any Democrat who won would have been Nobel Laureate worthy? That reasoning further cheapens an already questionable award. You're saying that if theoretically Hillary had won the nomination, or Biden or whomever had won the Dem primary and subsequently the WH, they would have been qualified Nobel Laureates? Really doesn't say much for Nobel standards does it. And it means that Obama's win had nothing to do with his accomplishments and his only real accomplishment is not being Bush. Is that what you're saying?
Shirkers:
This award really shows how Obama is viewed in the rest of the world, and how much his approach to diplomacy has already changed the world environment.
Viewed by world leaders, perhaps. Leaders all too happy to leech a little bit of charisma off him and maybe, perhaps, have his ear now and again. The people don't give a shit about your celebrity President.
The idea that the world has suddenly stopped turning, that men in conflict have started putting down their guns, that flowers grow where once there was but dust, all because you have elected a president that is NOT BUSH is funny. I'm laughing.
The rest of the world hasn't changed direction, you guys are just starting to catch up with it.
Man, even I'm surprised by the overreaction of the wingnuts, here and elsewhere.
*sniff* *sniff*
You smell that? That's the stench of desperation. Smells a little like blood in the water...
@LFC
Decade long "cooling period"?
Waddya' know! Bart is just as ignorant as George Will on how to read a graph.
Maybe BDP and George Will were holding the graphs upside down...
Gatordad,
I would say Rudy's comments have been the stupidest I've read. I think Brooks was a tongue in cheek.
LFC, that makes no sense.
Hitler's opponents never won a Nobel.
Stalin's opponents never won a Nobel.
Mao's and the other Chinese Communists' opponents never won a Nobel.
Bush's opponents have now won at least SIX. (Kofi Annan 2001, Carter 2002, IAEA/ El Baradei 2005, IPCC/ Gore 2007, Krugman 2008, Barry 2009)
Is Bush really six times more evil than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao combined?
":rolleyes: You called Obama "King Obama" three times in one post, and said he made Americans look like "cowgirls". After all that, you're seriously trying to take a self-righteous tone on bashing a President? If Obama is so bad, why do you need to make puerile insults to bring him down?"
I was not being "self Righteous, just asking a question? Do you have any original thoughts of your own, or do you just pick off others peoples comments, roll your eyes, put and palm your palm to your face?
It seems to me that you are the King "O" of the self righteous department.....
Maybe BDP and George Will were holding the graphs upside down...
Maybe George Will. I doubt Bart actually looked at it. Lying is easier with plausible deniability. "I was just reading the script!"
@Obliterati
Man, even I'm surprised by the overreaction of the wingnuts, here and elsewhere.
Yeah, it's funny how much the America First! crowd reacts - cheers when we don't get the Olympics, catcalls when our President is recognized as a peacemaker.
You'd think these people actually hate America, wouldn't you?
Watching this nitwit, Nile Gardener (of the Heritage Foundation? WTF?!?) make a complete arse of himself on Sky News. Here you have an englishmen, presumably now an American citizen, aploplectic at Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. As Bonnie Greer said during the discussion/debate with this nutball, conservatives in America have gone off the deep end.
Rudy, here is the Nobel Committee's citation
'The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."'
----------------
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html
Where does it use the term 'his people' at all.
@Brian Jenkins
Is Bush really six times more evil than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao combined?
Wow. This is the first time I've ever seen someone compared to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao as a defense.
"Hey, at least Bush wasn't as bad as Hitler!"
Shrinkers, don't be an idiot if possible.
Bush wasn't evil at all, and you know it. But you have to pretend that Bush was six times more evil than anyone else who ever lived to justify the '00s Nobel Prizes.
Obama has continued virtually all of Bush's foreign policy. Does that make him as evil as Bushitlerstalinmao?
Your logic dictates a "yes" answer.
Speaking of self righteous...(eye roll, face palm, hand wring:
I see people here accusing anyone who disagrees with this, as wanting to destroy Obama and bring failure to his presidency. Isn't that what the left did to GW for 8 years... More of the same?
Did I mention that while Al Qaeda declared war on the US and attacked our Navy the US President was enjoying fellatio in the Oval Office?
I think Clinton should have won the Piece Prize....
Rudy said...
"...Only very rarely has a person, to the same extent as Obama, captured the world's attention and given his people hope for a better future,"
I'm seeing it reported as "captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future". Trying to get to the Nobel site to get the correct direct quote but it is a little slow this morning.
Yeah Rudy, "his people" could not possibly mean the nation that elected him b'cuz everone knows the No-bel folks hate Amuhrica! Jebus Christ.
Also, have people considered that Annan, Carter, Gore, El Baradei, and others won because of their positive impact on the world? Suddenly every award given to Bush opponents is only a repudiation by rabid Bush-haters?
BTW, Krugman is not a Nobel peace laureate; he won for ECONOMICS. I don't know, maybe because he was one of few prominent economists who was right about the direction of the global economy?
And David, 205 people and organizations were nominated for Nobel peace prizes this year, and nominations can come from almost anywhere. Bush and Blair were nominated multiple times by various neocon groups. Just because the nomination came in February does not mean that the Nobel committee only judged Obama on his work through February; they made the decision only recently.
As a long time lurker, it is very difficult to believe what I am reading here today. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't by the folks at home.
It is pleasing that the international community understands the value of the current President of the United States.
Congratulations Mr President.
@gabrielle
In the wash of unrelenting tides (pushed up from a fast-advancing future) that are dissolving -- like centuries-old sand castles -- the world's monuments to racial, cultural, religious, and national bigotries that have historically led to the opposite of peace; President Obama represents a unifying presence. By awarding this prize to him, and specifically at this time in his very new, and very obviously unproven administration, the Nobel Committee is acknowledging and underscoring (perhaps even subconsciously?) something much, much greater than Obama. It is marking a momentous, inevitable shift in world focus that is squarely on those crumbling sand castles by recognizing the unprecedented: that the planet's most powerful nation not only elected a black man, but a black man who understands and welcomes the approaching Tides.
gabrielle, this is beautiful and cogent and right on the mark. I quoted in full to provide an opportunity for people to read it again. Thank you for this post.
OK Rudy, WTF did you find your version of the quote?
Because on the Nobel site the press release reads:
"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future."
Well said Dwight. I did not notice that "it's people" referenced hope throughout the world, not "his people" to reference Americans or as Rudy so cravenly insists, just black people.
Krugman's medal says he won for Economics. But his weekly jeremiads against Republicans separated him from dozens of other candidates.
Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, and other gold bugs and Austrians were also correct about the economy, but they didn't urge rebellion against Bush.
As for your other question, nope. Not in the least. All won the Nobel after provoking high-profile conflicts with George Bush.
Liberals win the Nobel, conservative who actually make the world a better place do not.
Conservatives And The Taliban Agree
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/9/791371/-Conservatives-And-The-Taliban-Agree
RNC Hates America, DNC Calls Them On It
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/9/791424/-RNC-Hates-America,-DNC-Calls-Them-On-It
President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize, Wingnuts Throw Collective Temper Tantrum
http://firedoglake.com/2009/10/09/president-obama-wins-nobel-peace-prize-wingnuts-throw-collective-temper-tantrum/
I agree with Liz.
The international community does recognize the value of our President.
After all, it only happens, so often, that the International Community gets an egotistical, I wish my daddy had loved me, self hating American, that they could so easily manipulate.....
As a former Republican, I am proud that Obama has won the Nobel Prize
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/9/791350/-As-a-former-Republican,-I-am-proud-that-Obama-has-won-the-Nobel-Prize
Liberals win the Nobel, conservative who actually make the world a better place do not
Sounds like Jenkins needs a hug.
Blogger Rudy asserts that "Obama was primarily given the award for being black," and in support of this absurdity, misquotes the Norwegian Nobel Committee's press release, which says in part:
"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future."
"It's people" -- the world's people, Rudy -- not "his people."
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html
@Jacob
It looks like it's not a unique misquote. Google is pulling up 204 sites, compared to the correct phrase pulling up 17,500 sites. The list of incorrect quotes includes ABC news.
Hey journalists, sometimes copy-paste is a GOOD thing. :)
Markymark, the quote using "his people" was in the oral announcement of the award by the man quoted. I copied the quote from the Washington Post story after hearing it on the radio.
Dwight, any reporting you see now quoting it as "its" instead of "his" is obviously a revisionist attempt to change the racial inference.
Dwight, any reporting you see now quoting it as "its" instead of "his" is obviously a revisionist attempt to change the racial inference.
OBVIOUSLY!
:/
Well Brian,
I definitely disagree with your view of the Nobel committees and all progressives as a monolithic bloc dedicated to hating Bush, but at least you are honest enough to say what many conservatives are thinking: "Any time anything good happens to or because of a progressive, centrist, internationalist, etc it is only driven by hatred of conservatives." Any progressive fighting for peace is unworthy, while conservative warmongers make the world a better place.
On another note, damn good remarks by Obama today--humble, dedicated to earning this award through action. Wait for the right to go apes**t because he dishonored the Nobel committee by suggesting that their choice was undeserving ;)
@Dwight
"...Only very rarely has a person, to the same extent as Obama, captured the world's attention and given his people hope for a better future,"
On "its" vs "his" -
I suspect this announcement was not not originally written in English. The translation may not be perfect. In most languages, nouns have gender - I don't know if the original language of this announcement (Norwegian?) puts a gender on "world", but if "world" is male in that language, then "his" could still be referring to the world's people, not Obama's.
What is quoting/posting links to the Daily Kos supposed to do other than show that you are a WingNut willing to cheerlead for mediocrity and inaction, as long as the rhetoric is right (I mean left)?
The things on that website are so extreme as to be laughable. It is the equivalent of qutoing Rush Limbaugh at his most bombastic to prove a point about anything.
PorridgeGun using daily kos links and taglines to "prove" a point is like someone from the other side using Glenn Beck talking points as "proof" of something. You can do better than that. Can't you?
Hey Rudy, check this out:
http://nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=1173
Obviously a few people mistranscribed the speech from the funny talking old guy. ;) Understandable if you aren't use to it (my grandfather had emigrated in his mid-30's so I'm somewhat used to English with the thick accent).
What Obama has done is change the whole tone of world diplomacy, which, if you think about it, is an IMMENSE achievement.
Some commentator called it a prize for exemplifying the politics of dignity, which sounds about right.
When the US is isolationist, warmongering and runs roughshod over world institutions and conventions, it sends a message to the rest of the world that such behaviour is acceptable. This has implications not just for US diplomacy, but for diplomacy around the world.
Obama has come in and immediately shown that he wishes to engage, he wishes to listen, he wishes to learn and he wishes to respect other nations and global institutions. He has set a new tone not just for US relations with the rest of the world but has set a high bar for other nations in their own diplomacy and foreign policy.
We won't see the fruits of this for years, but the long-term benefits for world peace of a more engaged and respectful America will be incalculable.
Or maybe more understandable as a Freudian Slip by the listener?
Here is a thought Rudy, maybe WaPo misheard the quote, given that the written form has 'its people' as the quote and according to Dwight 17,500 compared to 204 have 'its'. Just a thought.
I Love This !!!
For eight years, the left, spouted their shrill, vitriolic hate speech at the POTUS.
But as soon as the right wing speaks up, they call it a "Temper Tantrum?
They call us names, such as "Tea Baggers".
Who is really throwing the temper tantrum here?
Comparing people who disapprove of Obama with Taliban sympathizers?
How about the constant undermining of our President, while in the midst of 2 wars? Two wars that almost every Democrat on the hill voted in favor of.
You guys have blown your load. America isn't going to sit back and believe what you say, just because you keep repeating it, anymore.
Every day, this President's image is diminished in the eye of Americans. The folks on the right, aren't causing this, The President himself, keeps stumbling over his own feet.
This "Prize" only hurts the President even more..
I can't wait to watch all of you on left, collectively explode, when Obama loses in 2012....
When Americans finally expose the man who would be king, for what he really is:
A nice looking, articulate guy who happened to be in the right place, at the left time...
@6p00d8341c7dce53ef
What Obama has done is change the whole tone of world diplomacy, which, if you think about it, is an IMMENSE achievement.
Excellent point. Yes. Just by being a real American president for a change, he has changed the world already. Recognizing that is valuable.
Watching the exploding right wing heads underscores the point. Clearly, the vehemence of the nutcase opposition to Obama shows just how threatening he is to the forces of hate and division.
I mean really, when his predecessor is defended by saying "At least Bush wasn't as bad s Hitler!" we are clearly seeing a sea change in how America views the world, and how the world views America - and that means a monumental change in how the world works.
@ markymark
If they'd transcribed it as they heard it should have read "hits people". :D
The conspiracy widens!
Or Rudy is numbnut.
I'm just worried about all these heads exploding on both sides. Who's gonna clean THAT up? LOL
@Masked Righty
How about the constant undermining of our President, while in the midst of 2 wars?
Since you think it is wrong to "undermine" the President while we're at war, I assume you will do all in your power to support our President now.
To do less would be hypocritical.
There is some serious butthurt self-immolation going on here.
It's just like people to take a big deal and then turn it into a much bigger deal by trying to insist that it's not a big deal.
Protesting levels: too much, methinks.
And then there is the load-blowing. We're gonna need some mops.
... and an 8mm camera.
Shrinkers,
The "exploding right wing" is loving this comical farce.
This just underscores how silly Obama mania really is.
I just can't stop laughing at the depth ass kissing you lefties are willing stoop to...
You are to Obama, what Monica was to Bill.......
Obama's peaceful accomplishments have included:
- Delivering on his promise to close Gitmo
- D.O.H.P.T. exit Iraq w/ honor
- D.O.H.P.T. stem the proliferation of nuclear capabilities and ambitions
- D.O.H.P.T. end 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
Oh. Wait...
To paraphrase Seinfeld, anyone can just make promises. It's keeping them that really matters.
Masked Righty, you didn't answer whether you will support this President in a time of war - or was that point just a cynical bit of nonsense on your part?
@shrinkers.
If the President decides to pay attention to the war, I will support him.
So far, he has spent more time, apologizing for America than he has communicating with the Generals that serve him..
If someone disagrees with the War in Iraq, or Afghanistan, that is fine.
You can email, call or snail mail your representatives every day in order to express your desires.
But if publicly, accusing a standing president in the midst of two wars of being a liar, warmonger, evil beast on a daily basis, didn't bring aid and comfort to the enemy, I don't know what would...
I agree that the award was perhaps premature. I also agree that this was a slap at the Bush administration. Statler's observation that Gore and Obama's Nobel prizes are bookends to an errant administration while ironic, is quite telling.
I suggest that this prize has less to do with Obama being president than it has to do with Obama as a person. His message began long before he took office and the Nobel prize, I think, is a nod to his efforts for bringing about peace; for giving voice to a segment of Americans who had been ignored.
Think about it. He won the presidency on a message of hope and change. That's what the Nobel committee gave him this prize for. Not for what he will accomplish but for what he has inspired throughout the world. Obama has made it possible to envision America in ways that haven't been felt since, well, the early sixties.
Was this a slap at the Bush policy? You're goddamn right it was and deservedly so. I, for one, think it was a good choice.
Thanks for your answer. So, you will not support this President in a time of war - you will, instead, criticize his methods, motives, decisions, and even his supporters. You will, in your own words, "bring aid and comfort to the enemy". Gotcha.
You expect to be taken seriously?
@Davy
Was this a slap at the Bush policy? You're goddamn right it was and deservedly so. I, for one, think it was a good choice.
Hey, Davy - Don't pick on Bush. After all, he wasn't as bad as Hitler.
MR,
Now that you mention it, Obama is kinda cute........
@Statler
Now that you mention it, Obama is kinda cute........
Damn right. I'd have his babies.
And I'm a straight male...
@Masked Righty
They call us names, such as "Tea Baggers".
Hey, you guys invented that, not us. The fact that you missed the porno reference was just gravy for the left.
Best of luck in 2012, though. :p
"Perhaps the happiest people in the US on this one will be the centrists - and those who wanted Obama to reshape the US image abroad."
Well, I pretty much fall into that group, and I voted for Obama, but I don't think he deserves this award. He hasn't even been in office for a year yet; we don't know whether any of his efforts will stick. They could at least have waited till later in his term. (Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt were also given the Peace Prize while in office, but not in their first year.)
@shrinkers
Hey, Davy - Don't pick on Bush. After all, he wasn't as bad as Hitler.
Yeah, I suppose you're right. Bush didn't try to eradicate an entire race. All he did was:
Invade a country that didn't need to be invaded just because he had insecurities with comparisons to his dad.
Help make the rich wealthier on the backs of the rest of us
Fail to get the mastermind of 9/11...
You know, I was going to continue this line of sarcasm but I'm just over it. If anybody wants to complete this list, knock yourself out.
Brian Jenkins said...
LFC, that makes no sense.
Hitler's opponents never won a Nobel. Stalin's opponents never won a Nobel. Mao's and the other Chinese Communists' opponents never won a Nobel.
Oh, I'm sorry. Who is the equivalent of Hitler, Stalin, or Mao this year, and who opposed them in any substantial way? And if you say N. Korea or Iran, and George W. (who was TOTALLY ineffective against either), you might as well leave here and go post at Red State.
Shrinkers, don't be an idiot if possible. Bush wasn't evil at all, and you know it. But you have to pretend that Bush was six times more evil than anyone else ...
So let me get this straight. Bush started a war on trumped up evidence, which he scrubbed shiny clean before showing to Congress, and over 100,000 died.
He changed our country's policy on torture, tortured hundreds (over a thousand?) or used rendition to send them to be tortured (NOT how rendition was used by other Presidents), and his torture policies ended up killing over 100 people while they were in our custody. When called on it, he lied his ass off and even had evidence destroyed.
But despite this, you know he isn't evil. And you call Shrinkers an idiot? Uuuuuuuuh, yeah. To paraphrase Barney Frank, "what planet do you spend most of your time on?"
As to your "six time more evil" metric, where the hell did you learn math. And what Liberty University course taught you how do you apply it to something like "evil"? Do you assign "evil units" to each bad act, assign "good units" to each nice act, and sum them up, or do you have some formula that weights evil heavier than good? Is there a Jesus Factor that makes an evil act by a non-Christian more evil than the same act by a Christian?
Bush turned a nation that stood for morality and freedom and turned it into a shoot first torture state. And that's evil. As evil as killing 6M Jews? No, evil nonetheless.
Unless, of course, you're one of the righties who think that anything the United States does is OK because, well, we're the United States!
I was not being "self Righteous, just asking a question? Do you have any original thoughts of your own, or do you just pick off others peoples comments, roll your eyes, put and palm your palm to your face?
It seems to me that you are the King "O" of the self righteous department.....
lol, I love how you don't even try to pretend to respond, you just insult me.
For eight years, the left, spouted their shrill, vitriolic hate speech at the POTUS.
But as soon as the right wing speaks up, they call it a "Temper Tantrum?
They call us names, such as "Tea Baggers".
This is the SAME person who called him "King Obama" a post ago, right?
How about the constant undermining of our President, while in the midst of 2 wars?
That's a damn good point! How in the world can Republicans be so treasonous as to continue to claim the President was born in Kenya, while in the midst of 2...
Oh wait, by "our President" you meant Bush, and by "constant undermining" you meant "political disagreement". Gotcha.
(P.S. I'm not usually a big fan of this sort of thing, but I can't help but notice that Masked Righty has the same initials as Mule, and the same trollish MO. Anyone thinking what I'm thinking?)
Why didn't they just cut out the middleman and give the aware the the U.S Constitution. Or possibly the 2009 calendar.
I say this, and I both voted for Obama and continue to support him.
Then again, they've given it to Teddy Roosevelt, Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat in the past. So really, I guess it's better to give it to someone with the potential for deserving it later than to someone who has already metaphorically pissed all over the concept.
But really, I wished they'd just given it to someone who is out there suffering in obscurity trying to make the world a more peaceful place.
Masked Righty said... For eight years, the left, spouted their shrill, vitriolic hate speech at the POTUS. But as soon as the right wing speaks up, they call it a "Temper Tantrum? They call us names, such as "Tea Baggers".
Yeah. The left said that Bush was screwing up by ignoring Afghanistan to charge into Iraq, leaving the first war to flounder! Oh, wait. That was true.
Well, they said that Bush went into Iraq on trumped up evidence and that he was screwing up the execution of that war! Oh, wait.
Well, the left said Bush was torturing people and imprisoning U.S. citizens without charges! Ooooh, that's right. Never mind on that one.
Well, the left said Bush was running up bills we couldn't pay, and was bankrupting the country. And look what happened! Oh, never mind.
But on the flip side, the Tea Partiers have been complaining about overspending for the past decade! What? Not until a Democrat got into office and inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression? Oh, never mind on that one.
Well, at least the Tea Party is reasonable when they call Obama a Socialist and say that he wants to destroy the U.S., right?
Mr. President,
We disagree profoundly on many issues. You tend to play it safe where I prefer to take risks. I don't think you're going far enough in most areas, and I am rather frustrated that you have gone nowhere at all in many others.
However, I am proud of you. I am proud that I voted for you, and I support you. Now, in your acceptance speech, you said you,d take this as a call to action. You'd better believe I'm going to hold you to that. I have issues I care very deeply about, and if you're not with me by November 2012, I'll vote for someone else. I am not a guaranteed vote for anybody or any party.
This does not diminish the pride I feel seeing my President receive the Nobel Prize. Very few people have won two of those, and nobody has ever won three. I'd like to see you be the first person to win three. Its going to be alot harder to cadge a second one, and damn near impossible to talk them out of a third. But I believe you can do it, sir. I believe you can do anything.
Good luck, if you need any help pushing the issues I care about, count me in, I'll be right by your side the whole way. And get to work on numbers 2 and 3.
Yours,
SnW
Statler, Davy, LFC, Persuter -
Just wanted to say, I'm proud to be in your company on this forum. (More concise to say it this way than in a multitude of separate posts with "Yeah! Like that!" as my only comment...)
I just made it to gabrielle's post. I had essentially attempted to articulate the same sentiment as she did but I think she captured it much better than me.
In the wash of unrelenting tides (pushed up from a fast-advancing future) that are dissolving -- like centuries-old sand castles -- the world's monuments to racial, cultural, religious, and national bigotries that have historically led to the opposite of peace; President Obama represents a unifying presence. By awarding this prize to him, and specifically at this time in his very new, and very obviously unproven administration, the Nobel Committee is acknowledging and underscoring (perhaps even subconsciously?) something much, much greater than Obama. It is marking a momentous, inevitable shift in world focus that is squarely on those crumbling sand castles by recognizing the unprecedented: that the planet's most powerful nation not only elected a black man, but a black man who understands and welcomes the approaching Tides.
First-time commenter, but after reading the first 100+ comments and not seeing a single reference to the actual criteria for a Nobel Peace Prize, I had to post something.
From sec 1 of the Statutes of the Nobel Foundation, the Peace Prize is to be given "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
I can understand how the committee could, in light of Obama's extensive non-proliferation work and other diplomatic considerations, find him to have met that requirement. While I personally think the award would have been more appropriate in 2010, that's a world of difference from thinking the award is at all inappropriate in 2009.
To those on the right: give the President some credit. Whatever the reasoning behind the prize, it does show that the worlds opinion of us has improved. And that is never a bad thing.
To those on the left: get over the Bush bashing. He may or may not have been an idiot, but he is last years idiot. Last term's idiot. He's gone. Get over it. Move along.
To both sides: none of these guys are Gods or Demons. They're career politicians doing a job. Some do it better, others worse. But to sanctify or demonize any of them is just ignorant.
And remember, our Constitution's primary goal is the idea that the power stays in the hands of the people, that no party or individual be able to achieve excessive power. So it's right and good that both parties get bitch slapped periodically, that individual politicians are scrutinized and made uncomfortable. And remember, whichever party is in power at the moment (particularly in the presidency) takes more heat and abuse. And that is how it should be.
For eight years, the left, spouted their shrill, vitriolic hate speech at the POTUS.
By the way, I PARTICULARLY love this particular little meme that Democrats were constantly against Bush for this reason: Republicans impeached the last Democratic President! In the middle of that impeachment al-Qa'ida blew up two of our embassies, killing hundreds of people.
Did the Republicans immediately line up behind the President? Surely they at least supported him when he fired cruise missiles at a training camp in Afghanistan in an attempt to kill Osama bin Laden? Let's ask John Ashcroft!
‘We support the president out of a sense of duty whenever he deploys military forces, but we’re not sure - were these forces sent at this time because he needed to divert our attention from his personal problems?
How about Pete Sessions?
I’m very supportive of the strike that has happened, but I will tell you that the timing is very questionable. This was the day that Monica Lewinsky has gone back to the grand jury, evidently enraged. Certainly that information will be overshadowed.
But hey, those guys are crazy! Surely Arlen Specter will keep things on the level!
There’s an obvious issue which will be raised internationally about the response here as to whether there is any diversionary motive involved.
OK, but hell, those were attacks on Osama bin Laden, and he's a pretty nice guy. Surely when he bombed Iraq later in the year as a result of their avoiding Security Council sanctions, the exact same reason that Bush eventually invaded the country, they were supportive of the President and the troops, right? Let's ask Trent Lott!
I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time. Both the timing and the policy are subject to question.
(That, by the way, was said even though Trent had attended a briefing three weeks earlier in which the intention to bomb Iraq if they did not cooperate was made clear.)
John Warner?
Senator Lott is correct, you do have to put in question the timing
So keep in mind kids - you must ALWAYS support the President in any military action! You certainly can never undermine him or accuse him of political machinations being behind his decisions...
UNLESS you're currently impeaching him for lying about a blowjob! THEN it's fine.
@pursuter
Masked Righty has the same initials as Mule, and the same trollish MO. Anyone thinking what I'm thinking?)
Yeah, picked up on that, too. I guess the Mule moniker needed rebranding.
@shrinkers,
There you go, Love the left wing tactics....
When left with nothing to say, say nothing, apply labels, call names or twist words.
My answer was very clear, if you choose misinterpret it, then I have no control over that.
I will criticize this President, every day that he is in office. But at least, when I do so, it will be based on the truth, on his actions or inaction, on how his agenda helps or hurts this country.
I will support him as "Commander in Chief". I would never, publicly undermine our president or troops by calling for an end to a war (wars) that this country may be engaged in. Or by publicly, questioning the motives of the President for engaging in war, just to gain political points for my party.
As I said earlier. When it comes to matters involving our troops in the field, I will express my concerns privately, to my representatives in Congress or to the White House, directly.
I will not, provide aid and comfort to our enemies, just so that my party of choice, can retain political power.
That is the difference between you and I, Shrinker. You and your kind, will do anything or say anything, regardless of truth or the damage it inflicts upon our country, just to get your political party, back into power..
I Will Not....
Ah, the rightwing continues to marginalize itself.
The thing about rightwing criticism of Obama winning the Nobel prize is this: There is literally nothing he could do that they'd consider as worthy of winning the award. Obama--or any Democrat for that matter--could get every nation on Earth to beat its swords into plowshares, and yet still the same shrill whiners on the right would take issue.
If Obama brings troops home from Iraq, they'd hate him. If he kept troops in Iraq, they'd hate him. They hate him because he went to Copenhagen and the US didn't get the Olympics (and they rejoiced). They'd have hated him if he went to Copenhagen and the US did get the Olympics.
That is the gift that Rush and Sean and Bill and others have given to their rightwing sycophants. Republicans no longer need defensible reasons to hate liberals. Hatred itself is cause enough! Democrats are to blame for everything!
While the left is not scot-free of dogma by any means, the rightwing does nothing BUT adhere to dogma in direct contradiction to rational thought or established fact.
Take recent discussions on health care reform as an example. Liberals can debate the nuances of various plans and proposals. Conservatives cannot because to them, health care reform is evil and socialistic, and that's all they really need to know when making their political decisions.
Excellent documentation, Persuter.
The right wing hypocrisy is pretty clear. When objections are raised to a Republican president, well, those objections are raised by people who hate America, and who refuse to support the President, particularly in a time of war. Yet right wingers feel free to mount the most outrageous attacks and invented nonsense against a Democratic president - even during a war - even crap they have to make up (birthers anyone?).
Classic case of "It's okay when I do it, but when you do it, you're a traitor."
And these people expect anyone to take them seriously?
It's obvious, by their own argument, that they wish to undermine America, and they want to "give aid and comfort to our enemies". So, by their simple logic, their arguments are designed to weaken and damage our country. Which should have been clear anyway - how well did Bush do in keeping America strong and healthy? The worldwide economic collapse, the destruction of American freedoms, the low esteem we were held in by the whole world, the fact that our military is stretched thin and sorely weakened, the deteriorating state of our infrastructure and our schools, all this can be laid firmly at the feet of following the advice of the far right wing - who must really hate America, to have done this to us, and to be still defending these actions and policies.
Oh, I'm sorry I forgot, I shouldn't be mean to Bush. He wasn't as bad as Hitler.
And we should just move on and pretend the last eight years didn't happen. Presumably, so we can make the same mistakes again...
BD: "What does the promotion of green socialism in the midst of a decade long global cooling period have remotely to do with peace?"
Jacob said...
Nothing I guess, But advocating serious investment in renewable energy and carbon reduction in the midst of a worsening global crisis that will affect food supplies, living space, etc has A LOT to do with peace and the general well-being of the world.
The world went through greater warming periods during the Roman Empire and again at the height of the Islamic expansion with no ill economic effects or spike in wars.
Hunter L. Cook said...
The whole "we haven't warmed up any since 1998" thing is complete poppycock.
The decrease in solar activity is being followed closely by a substantial decrease in world temperatures. Now, even the manmade global warming coreligionists are predicting a long term cooling cycle.
LFC said...
Maybe Bart needs to go back to high school to learn what a trend line is, and why a single high data point (1998) doesn't mean that subsequent years represent cooling.
You are very likely using the old erroneous 1998 data put out by NASA which has since been corrected. 1998 is no longer the warmest year on record in the US, 1934 is the warmest year. Indeed, five of the ten warmest years in the US were in the 1920s and 1930s.
In reality, the general warming trend line started as the Small Ice Age ended in the early 1800s and has bounced up and down with solar activity with no apparent relationship to CO2 emissions.
In the past century, temps went up less than a degree until the late 30s, went down by less than a degree between 1940 and 1979 (leading to the predictions of an ice age in the 70s), went up by less than a degree between 1980 and 1998 (leading to the global warming predictions), and have now gone down again by less than a degree between 1999 and 2009.
Masked Righty just said... I will support him as "Commander in Chief". I would never, publicly undermine our president or troops by calling for an end to a war (wars) that this country may be engaged in. Or by publicly, questioning the motives of the President for engaging in war, just to gain political points for my party.
Earlier he/she said... How can Obama accept this and then turn around and send more troops to Afghanistan? How can he be Mr. Nobel and send our armed forces anywhere? America and it's interests, can now be attacked world wide with impunity.
So you wouldn't call for an end to a war, but you'd eagerly question how Obama could be capable of waging one, or state definitively that his actions have left us defenseless.
It looks to me like you're proud of the fact that you won't criticize a sitting President for taking an action you agree with. I've just caught more than a whiff of GOP partisan.
The thing about rightwing criticism of Obama winning the Nobel prize is this: There is literally nothing he could do that they'd consider as worthy of winning the award.
This argument is a non sequitur. And you can just make projections and stereotypes such as suggesting that there is "literally nothing" he could do that would be considered worty of winning the award. I don't agree with him much, but I could certainly see myself finding him worthy IF he were to ever live up to the lofty accomplishments he's been telling us he's going to do. So far, though? Nothing.
Anyway, you're argument would be like saying that Twins fans would be indignant if Joe Mauer lost the AL MVP this year to a "slugger" who hit only .250 with 20 HRs and 75 RBIs and saying they're idiots because they still wouldn't support the guy over their hometown favorite even if he hit .400 with 50 HRs and 150 RBIs. Well, there wasn't somebody who ACTUALLY DID DO THAT (i.e. surpass Joe Mauer's accomplishments), just like Obama HAS NOT DONE ANYTHING to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. That's what it boils down to. Plain. And. Simple.
Gatordad said... To those on the left: get over the Bush bashing. He may or may not have been an idiot, but he is last years idiot. Last term's idiot. He's gone. Get over it. Move along.
I have to disagree with you a bit here.
How can we "move along" when the right is still defending Bush's torture policy? Does that mean that when a Republican wins back the White House at some point, we can simply expect torture to become U.S. policy again?
How can we "move along" from the bone-crushingly stupid fiscal policies that allowed, even encouraged, the financial industry to nearly destroy our country? There are Republicans calling for more of the same as medicine now; more tax cuts, more deregulation, less oversight.
If I felt lessons had been learned on all sides, I'd agree with you. But the fact is that the right has learned nothing from its failures. They're ready to double down.
Masked Righty said...
That is the difference between you and I, Shrinker. You and your kind, will do anything or say anything, regardless of truth or the damage it inflicts upon our country, just to get your political party, back into power..
I Will Not....
Based on reading your comments and Shrinker's comments, you are very much confused. I am quite certain Shrinker is not a Republican, and you sir, definitely do not sound like a Democrat.
Gatordad -
William Faulkner wrote, "The past is never dead. It's not even past."
We have to deal with what has happened, and we have to understand why it happened. To say, "Just move on" risks ignoring important lessons.
It also risks misappropriating responsibility. It is important to keep in mind how we got into this state, if for no other reason, then to combat the inevitable noise from the right blaming Obama for Bush's leftovers when we get to the next election cycle.
It's really funny - Bush II was still blaming Clinton - and even Jimmy Carter! - for the deteriorating economy, even in Bush's last couple of years in office. Another example of right-wing hypocrisy.
No, we will continue to put proper responsibility where it belongs. You'll just have to be disappointed in us.
shrinkers I never said forget. We should examine every presidency and try to learn from it. But to continue beating a dead horse makes your arguments weaker and your points less convincing. Pointing fingers never makes your position stronger, it weakens it. Facts and logic make it stronger. And the shrillness from both sides is just juvenile. Is the idea to fix what's broken, or to just bitch interminably.
Just saw the comments linking me to 'Masked Righty.'
For clarification, we ARE two different people.
Believe it or not, there are several of us out here who don't like Obama...we don't have to "hide" behind several names just to give the false impression there are more of us than there really are.
Persuter, you've proven time and time again that you are nothing but a dipshit.
Oh, I see.... it is now not only unacceptable to disagree with the President, lest one be labeled racist, you can't require actions to go along with his words, lest one be labeled unpatriotic.
If you want to characterize the conservatives as wingnuts, FReep tards, tea-baggers, feel free. Your condescension and elitism has been noted by those of us in the great unwashed. It is one of the many reasons that his approval ratings are in the 48% range.
Perhaps you sheeple will wake up and see that, insofar as accomplishments are concerned, this emperor has no clothes. He talks a good game, and I would love for a strong USA to be admired around the world for its dedication to freedom and equality, but just wishing does not make it so.
You can't silence dissent, either by shouting it down, intimidating it with charges or 'Unamerican' or 'Racist', or insulting it and consider yourself liberal, progressive or American.
I think quite a few people have very much the wrong impression of the Limbaugh/Beck's of the world.
They loved reading this news. Big smiles broke out on their faces.
Their rants wrote themselves for the rest of the week. How often can they so easily get Obama, Gore, Carter, and even Paul Krugman into a piece so coherently?
Right wing nutters are making a special effort to tune in to hear them.
This is what they live for.
LFC and Shrinker:
How can we "move along" when the right is still defending Bush's torture policy? Does that mean that when a Republican wins back the White House at some point, we can simply expect torture to become U.S. policy again?
Why wait? Obama changed it in no way, shape, or form. He could end it all tomorrow. But he doesn't; that would make a terrorist attack more likely. And that would cost him love and votes. So it doesn't happen.
How can we "move along" from the bone-crushingly stupid fiscal policies that allowed, even encouraged, the financial industry to nearly destroy our country? There are Republicans calling for more of the same as medicine now; more tax cuts, more deregulation, less oversight.
And Democrats don't change the regulations. Why? Tax hikes and increased regulations will slow the economy even more, costing them love and votes.
Six Nobels for hating Bush. You're probably thinking it was a shame no one assassinated him as in that movie- the assassin would probably have won all six at once!
Hey, look. Mule Rider got outed and showed up as his real self.
Dude, I've been subjected to your rants for over a year now. That 'Masked Righty' thing wasn't even creative.
Wow, it really MUST suck to be you.
Bart DePalma said... You are very likely using the old erroneous 1998 data put out by NASA which has since been corrected. 1998 is no longer the warmest year on record in the US, 1934 is the warmest year. Indeed, five of the ten warmest years in the US were in the 1920s and 1930s.
No time at the moment to research your source (which you did not provide), but how does this have anything to do with your statement that we've been in a decade long cooling period?
And I called 1998 a high data point, not the highest ... though again, I'll research to see where your info came from.
And I though it was just graphs you couldn't read.
Just saw the comments linking me to 'Masked Righty.'
For clarification, we ARE two different people.
To quote a well known Republican, "YOU LIE"
Media doing to Obama the same thing as the Soviets to Sakharov in 1975. They don't want him to go and say the award's a gimmick.
@Brian Jenkins
Obama changed it [torture policies] in no way, shape, or form.
Actually, he did. I believe it was during his first week in office, he recinded the Bush presidential findings that allowed torture.
And Democrats don't change the regulations.
The Obama Administration is currently reviewing and reformulating financial regulations. Let's talk again after their thorough review is complete and their recommendations are presented, okay?
Tax hikes and increased regulations will slow the economy even more, costing them love and votes.
Yeah, yeah, blah, blah. We've heard this rightie talking point for decades. We've seen what lowering taxes for the wealthy and deregulating the financial sector does to our economy. No one's buying that silliness anymore.
If you disagree with the policies, then argue the policies. Both sides have been guilty of demonizing the person (see Clinton/Bush). Attacking the person accomplishes nothing. Attack the policies. They live on long after the individuals are gone. And use reason and logic to attack the policies, not BS party talking points. Do your own research. Dig for the truth. Or you can be intellectually lazy and bankrupt and just spout generalities and slogans. Something both sides seem to feel "proves" their points. Ridiculous.
GatorDad,
Couldn't agree with you more. By the way, Tebow shouldn't play this weekend. They'll beat the tigers without him.
Wow, the comments equating Daily Kos, who have an up and down voting system to weed out left or right leaning trolls and bans anyone who overdoes it with remarks that are less inflamatory than what is usually found on this site, to conspiracy nuts and racists like Limbaugh and Beck, is laughable and the height of ignorance. Clearly, these people haven't spent five minutes on that site, nevermind bothered to compare it to the insane rantings on Free Republic, which openly supports domestic terrorism, calls for the murder of the President and First Lady, and calls their kids whores. None of this is hidden. That site it totally overrun by white supremacists.
BTW, Free Republic and World Nut Daily is where Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck get their daily talking points from.
@Davy,
I Love you brother...
You actually believe that you are really in the majority don't you?
You just can't believe that there might be 2 people out there who think Obama mania is a short lived fad....
Peace, and health to you Davy, because your man, King "O" is not going to help you with either of those.....
I crack my #$%^&* self up !!!
Take a eft turn off a short pier :)
To quote a well known Republican, "YOU LIE"
No. You are very much lying. And lazy.
The inane comments dumbasses like you continue to make simply amaze me.
The Obama Administration is currently reviewing and reformulating financial regulations. Let's talk again after their thorough review is complete and their recommendations are presented, okay?
Translation: I was right. Maybe Barry should have won the Nobel for Attempted Peace- except when has he actually made an attempt?
Yeah, yeah, blah, blah. We've heard this rightie talking point for decades. We've seen what lowering taxes for the wealthy and deregulating the financial sector does to our economy. No one's buying that silliness anymore.
Congress is; otherwise the regs would have been changed. Last I checked, the Democrats had a 78-seat House and 20-seat Senate majority. No financial regulation has passed. Could it be that Congress knows that changes will make a bad situation even worse?
Thanks for showing how the Democrats have managed to blow their mandate without accomplishing anything, in less time than it takes a woman to have a child.
Hey Lehman,
He probably shouldn't but he will. He's Tebow. I think Brantley will start, but Urban will try to sneak Tim in on a wildcat set. Should be a good game. UF 35 LSU 17
BDP, Jeff, BJ et al wingers, take your meds and it will be ok, really! ;)
Oh the humanity for the party of No! Too funny!
A victory for Obama! :)))
carry on
Post a Comment