What are you talking about?

Perhaps that is because in light of the circumstances, we aren't obligated to do so. No one has to answer to you or anyone else who disgrees with the decision because the committee has the discretion to do what they feel is best. The fact that they felt this way is enough for me and should be enough for you.

Like I said, there are settings in which Obama is very vocal about biracialism as his primary identity rather than Black as his primary identity.

Obligated? Strange choice of words. No, you are not obligated to answer me, but the failure to do so indicates that you have no valid answer to a very fair, logical question - what has Obama done to deserve the award? No answer would seem to indicate that you have, well, no answer to that question. Fair enough. But who are you to tell me that I cannot feel he was given the award for reasons other than those specified in Nobel's will? I've felt no need to tell those who feel he earned it that they are wrong or that anything that is "enough for me" must needs be enough for them. I would honestly like to know what it is that Obama has achieved since becoming president (never mind within the 9 days between his becoming president and being nominated) that merits the Nobel Peace Prize. And just as an FYI - he is hardly the first controversial award winner.

If, as you have done, you wish to criticize those who feel that he does not deserve the award then you have in fact demonstrated that "the fact that they felt this way is enough for me" is not true. If it were, you wouldn't be as invested in this thread.

No, it absolutely should NOT be enough for everybody - under similar logic, we would never question decisions by Congress, judges, juries, police officers, and others who may do what they think is "best" to disastrous ends.

It's fine if it's enough for you, but I see no reason why it is wrong or improper to feel differently.

No, it doesn't indicate a lack of a valid answer. You should know that from many of the discussions that have taken place on here. More than likely it is the presumptuous tone of your question.

And since, as you pointed out, he ISN'T the first controversial award winner, that should remove some of the shock and surprise.

The difference is that a foreign country is "in charge of" this award. I certainly do question things...when the US is "in charge of" it. I'm not arrogant enough to tell folks in a foreign country what they should or should not do. That attitude is why other countries have so much hatred towards the US anyway. Instead I leave my questioning for things that occur HERE.

If it doesn't indicate a lack of a valid answer, do tell why you (or anyone) who has a valid answer would play coy and not give it.

It's hardly presumptuous (presumptous of what, exactly?) to say I don't feel he fits the criteria (which I quoted, just in case) and to ask that if you do, please tell what he has done that would qualify him to win. If, for whatever reason, you chose not to disclose why you think he qualifies - what are we to think?

When did shock and surprise enter the conversation? I will say that Obama himself said he was surprised - did you expect him to win? Really? (Rhetorical question, btw.)

In case you missed it - the U.S. is a part of the world, and what happens in one country, affects another. The award is decided upon by 5 Norwegians, but it is an international award specifically designed to have a worldwide impact. So you are concerned about what other countries would think of us exercising free speech? Is your solution to shut out criticism of Obama (or in this case, really the Nobel committee)? You've said you won't give an answer to the question of why he qualifies - so are you just interested in being critical of those who quite simply don't think that he was the BEST choice - notice in my earlier post I went to the trouble of looking up other nominees, who I felt were better qualified.

The fact that you are so concerned with how criticism of the award might feed into international opinion of the U.S. is ironic given that one reason given for Obama's being given the award is the fact that his election changed the perception of the U.S. by other countries. If we are going for the whole isolation thing, then why should we be concerned with anything we are not "in charge of"? For that matter, using your "logic", why should any other country criticize the U.S. if they are not "in charge of " it? Iraq? Guatanamo Bay? Should the world have no say in these things because they are not in charge of it? The U.N. would have to shut down in every country were only in a position to have an opinion of those things they were "in charge of".

I honestly hope that Obama lives up to the opinion of the committee and is able to bring about a peaceful, non-nuclear world. That would obviously be a great thing. I just don't think he's done it yet or made enough progress towards it to warrant a Nobel Peace Prize.

(Smilies inserted at request of 7 yr. old son who is looking over my shoulder- :) :D ;) :confused::confused:)

Please see above.

Which part has never happened before? Because each element is notably present, whether by sheer numbers and diversity (others have carried more of the popular vote across a broader spectrum), others have utilized a message of hope/change/empowerment (off the top of my head, Kennedy), etc., in previous presidential bids. Now, Obama's been the most recent, and certainly a big departure from Bush, but it seems like you're markedly overstating your case.

Now, I'm not trying to denigrate Obama's campaign, but it's just that: a campaign, one full of politics and promises, just like every other campaign. Trust me, I vastly prefer the politics of hope over those of fear or xenophobia or whatever, but it's too soon to say this new type of politics actually leads to anything substantive, don't you think?

Obama's election changed the perception of the US because other countries know how racist this country is...even today. THAT is what changed. They were finally able to see the election of a Black president in a country that is known for its horrendous and despicable treatment of Blacks. Still, other countries have long felt that we have a "savior" mentality and think that OUR way is the best way. That perception hasn't changed much, but other leaders appreciate the fact that Obama shows proper respect and doesn't throw his weight around like many of our past presidents.

In reference to the comment about whether we are in "charge" of something, the examples you gave are far different. The Nobel Prize doesn't have the same effect as our involvement in Iraq or the situation with Guantanamo. But I think you know that.

And with respect to your question of why some of us "play coy"..............
Some of us are NOT playing coy. I just don't feel I need to tell you why I am glad that he won the award. It's fine if you want to list everyone you felt was more entitled. So what? That means absolutely nothing. IT WASN'T YOUR CALL TO MAKE. What part of that are you having trouble comprehending? The difference between us is that I am satisfied that these people chose the person THEY felt was best. They chose the person THEY wanted. I respect their right and privilege to do so.

One of the local (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) columnists said it well: When Intentions Win Prizes, Hope Springs Eternal

The Chicago Tribune also has an interesting take: It's a Twelve Day Miracle! Praise Obama and Pass the Hopium!

I don't know many people who think that the President isn't capable of winning a Nobel Prize, but in twelve days? That's what most people are questioning. If the Nobel Committee want to cheapen the meaning of the Peace Prize, that's their privilege. Unfortunately, their decision also cheapens every Nobel prize they've awarded in the past.

Only the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Prize on Literature, Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine is without equal. It's like winning the Gold Medal for Literature and Science.

Yes there have been plenty of people who have run on the same message and there have been presidents who've carried more of the vote. Who is the last president who had this much international support before and after being elected president? How many U.S. presidents draw crowds of millions anywhere outside of the country (even before being elected)?
And by support and being able to unite people I don't just mean Americans. Im not talking about just his election bid. As a world leader Obama's efforts and support are not paralleled by many. There are not many people who have rallied and campaigned for peace and unity and hope at the scale Obama has. If you think of the people who have had this kind of world wide support names you might mention would be Mandela, Bishop Tutu, Martin L. King Jr. Now, I would not go as far to say that Obama is their equal exactly, but he has gone a step further than any of them has been able to. To come from relative obscurity and be able to achieve what he has is quite amazing. All the other world leaders of this magnitude came out of some MAJOR civil rights movement/ fight against injustice. Obama came from "average" America. That is a feat.

So, what I am saying about his efforts is not specific to his camaign for president only. His campaign and promises made are just a bunch of words that aren't worth a certificate from Staples. What makes Obama's efforts even remotely worthy of a Nobel is the overwhelming support and inspiration and change he has made around the world. There has been no person who has had this much influence this soon and has used positivity to gain it.