Nobel Committee & "Obamania"?

I just heard a news commentator say it best. He said Obama won it for *not* being George W Bush.

The world is just so relieved to be rid of GW!

This is, of course, the same committee who gave the Nobel Peace Prize to Yassir Arafat.

In my opinion, they have just shown themselves to be a committee of clueless fan boys, not deserving of any serious consideration in the future.

And many who are so hateful toward Bush may have another opinion in a few years.

It certainly seems a bit too soon to me. I know he has spoken of things he "wants" to do but he hasn't done them yet so I think the Committee has jumped the gun on this one.

Well, let's see. He hasn't pulled any troops out of Iraq. He has sent more to Afghanistan and will probably send even more. He has continued the drone attacks in Pakistan. He hasn't closed Guantanamo Bay and it's looking like he won't any time soon. He hasn't talked to the Iranian leaders, and most experts say he is in on the planning for a military attack on their nuclear facilities.

So...this prize is for what?

I wondered about this when I first heard the news this morning, but I saw this article. Granted, its from the AP, so you can take it with a grain of salt.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...bA-1gD9B7HDR80

But the part that appeases me is this:

If that's in the spirit of the Nobel Peace Prize, then okay. I may not be happy with many of Obama's decisions or ideas, but I'm not going to argue that he is in a position to have a great influence on world peace, and I hope that he takes that responsibility seriously and is able to utilize that influence in a meaningful way.

In this case, I would like to wish Obama all the best luck, because those are some mighty big shoes to fill, no matter who you are.

I must say I was surprised, though I think many of the things he is doing internationally are in the right direction. But he really has not had a chance to prove himself - so far there is a lot of good talking but not any completed actions.

pretty much says it all.

Oh, come on - Obama is trying to work out a lot of things the prior President got us into and he's getting beat up for not being able to completely reverse the actions of eight years in nine months - while dealing with the greatest economic crisis since the Depression? - but, at the same time he has reached out for dialogue with the rest of the world (in the view of many, totally unlike the prior administration's policies). I think he got the award for trying to position the US as a country that is willing to listen and work with other nations in a positive fashion.

But, for some folks, Mother Theresa could come back from the dead and say Obama's not a bad guy, and they'd find a way to spin it negatively.

Besides, I'm waiting for someone to screech about how expensive it'll be to go to Oslo.

I have to say that I'm in complete agreement with the majority of those in this thread. Obviously improving diplomacy and international relations was a big highlight of his campaign. He's done a whole lot of talking in the first 9, almost 10 months of his Presidency. Action? Well, internationally speaking that is a whole different ball of wax, isn't it? He hasn't done much more than sign bills that will spend a LOT of money domestically and done a lot of talking internationally.

Does this mean he's a shoe in for the next 3 years for the Nobel Peace Prize if he does keep even a quarter of his promises from his speeches?

It does seem way too soon to me, too. Not saying he won't deserve it in the future, but he has a lot to do before he actually deserves it IMO.

Found this on the Nobel Prize's website



The interesting thing about this is that Obama had to be nominated within (or before) 12 days after his inauguragion, which meant that he really hadn't done anything but talk. He hadn't even met with anyone outside of the US at that point. By the end of March he had been put on the short list. Once again, not much had actually been done by that point.

I'm not knocking Obama on this one but the Nobel Committee. I think they did have stars in their eyes, frankly, to even consider him a worthy recipient by March, between 1-2 months into his Presidency. He hadn't proven that he was going to actually carry through with anything he had spoken about, and we all know about "campaign promises".

I've always liked Obama and been a supporter but I have to agree - the Committee has certainly jumped the gun on this one. I would have thought that those on the Nobel Committe would have had more intelligence, especially combined, but apparently not.

I agree. And if Obama had any class at all, he would reject the prize stating that he hadn't done anything to deserve it. After all, the closing date for consideration was 12 days after he took office.

At the very least, he should donate the prize money to a worthwhile cause.

Okay...i'm going to go ahead and be the first to say that he only won it because he's the first black president. And they were just fishing for a "real" reason when there is none to make it seem legit.

I'm sure we all know it deep in our hearts that he hasn't really done anything yet, least of all to be deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize.

There seems to be a widespread misunderstanding about why the Peace prize is awarded. If isn't awarded for successfully achieving results. It is awarded for effort and vision in promoting peace. Whether any particular result is actually achieved isn't relevant.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091009/...eu_nobel_peace

I seriously doubt his being black played any part at all in the award.

It's funny the amount of underlying hostility that's out there (not necesarily from this board) directed at Obama for winning this. It's not something you campaign for, so if you're not kosher with the decision, 100% of ones angst over the situation should be with the Committee/process.

And let's face it, the halo that goes with winning an award such as this before you've actually accomplished anything, can quickly become a burdensome noose that may in fact be a political detriment.

For the record; I voted for Obama, have become more than a bit disappointed, and do not think he deserved the "honor". Though, as someone mentioned on a television show this morning, I really can't think of anyone off-hand that's (more) deserving. No one yet has come forth as saying someone else got shafted by not receiving the award. An unfortunate consequence of having an annual prize whether anyone fits the criteria or not, I suppose.

I don't know that his having been nominated so early is critical. After all, the committee was under no obligation to select him, and that decision was made very recently. While it seems premature I think it is their way of saying they feel he is on the right track. I see it as a stamp of a approval for his efforts and potential from the international community more than anything else.

I just wish they hadn't given it to Al Gore though since that more than anything has devalued it in my eyes.

You make some good points. I'd be interested to know who the other nominees are, but I would have voted for Clinton over Obama.

Please speak for yourself -

Also, might want to read up on 'why' the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded.

Please, what has he done to deserve such an honor? And why is he a better choice than Clinton?

Well for one, Clinton doesn't have very good morals so I'm certain some folks would be very much against someone like that getting such coveted prize.

IMO, to say 'we all know' anything is just not right - that's like saying 'we all know deep in our hearts that all conservatives are jealous, insecure, racists' - certainly not true.

Secondly, since the committee itself indicate that sometimes the Peace Prize is awarded as a sort of encouragement to 'keep the faith' and continue with a difficult journey, and since President Obama was able, even in the days between election and inauguration, to reach out to all the peoples of the world and to set a new tone for US policy, one of inclusion and working with others, and for that tone to be accepted by many of those peoples, isn't really something to be sneezed at, IMO.

I think there are a number of people who deserve such an award - and former President Clinton is definitely among them. But, if the Nobel Committee felt the new reaching out to the world deserves acclamation, well, I'm not going to disagree with them.

But if it's an attempt to try to orchestrate our foreign policy, then I'm against it. It should never be allowed to be awarded to a sitting head of state, no matter what country or where.

He is donating the prize money to charity, and that is a good thing.

Oh dear, now there will be a big kafuffle over which charity he chooses.

No kidding!!!!

12 Days? He wasn't able to even find a dog in that time.

It certainly raises the bar for him to be successful with his commitments. That is encouraging in and of itself.

I think the winners are not given the prize moneys for their personal expenses. At least in science, it's meant to be applied toward future work.

Is this in reference to his being an adulterer? If so, other adulterers have won the prize.

Yes, I'm on his mass e-mail distribution list and I just received this e-mail from him:

Amy --

This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.

That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.

This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.

So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

Gee...the first person to admit they receive the daily "talking points" from the White House!

Well, maybe...

Not sure what he could do about it, even if thought he shouldn't get it. A real no-win situation. Not his fault, and probably not the way he'd prefer to get it.