Originally Posted by Little32 (Post 1855643)

(and sometimes you folks are just too much for me).

Originally Posted by Munchkin03 (Post 1855636)

I wonder how much of it is the European Community "commending" the US, for lack of a better word, for electing the opposite of George W. Bush.

Originally Posted by KSigkid (Post 1855641)

I think that has a lot to do with it, and I think the President is benefitting from a reversal of the anti-Bush international backlash.
This is completely a "message award;" that doesn't necessarily make it different than past Nobel Prizes, but I think people should at least keep that point in mind.

But I think it's open to interpretation of whether that should actually be the case.

I'll admit that I have a rather limited understanding of the Nobel criteria for each of the categories. My limited understanding, though, is that in other categories (science and literature for example), the prize is given for someone who has either completed or substantially completed something. In the science categories, the individuals involved have either discovered something or substantially furthered the understanding of a concept.

In my opinion, the Peace Prize should be judged by similar criteria. I think that it's incredibly difficult to bring about the type of change worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize, but that's ok with me...it's an extraordinary award that should be given for extraordinary results.

Originally Posted by Little32 (Post 1855643)

ETA: It never ceases to amaze me how folk who don't run anything but their mouths try to second guess those who are in a position to make these awards. Why do you all get to say he doesn't deserve the award, when according to the judgement of the folks that vote for these prizes year-in and year-out, he does. Give me a break.

Originally Posted by tld221 (Post 1855647)

Furthermore, im suprised no one has pulled a race card yet. Not just GC, but in the media.

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1855649)

Race isn't a "card," but I mentioned being the first Black President in my 2nd post. :)

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid (Post 1855650)

So does that mean that Mandela got one for being the 1st Black President in South Africa?

Originally Posted by KSigkid (Post 1855652)

Little32 and DS...I think you're making WAY too much out of this. EW is the only poster who has been critical of the President's international policy in this thread. All the rest of us are saying is that they think it was a bit early and premature to give him the prize. That's it.

Did we lose the ability to second-guess at the close of the Bush administration?

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1855653)

That probably had something to do with it. A Black President of South Afrika is a great example of change and hope for future change.

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid (Post 1855654)

I'm not really taking part of the debate because I already have an idea of how it will go, so have at it. I got red kool ade and popcorn sitting by the couch.

Originally Posted by KSigkid (Post 1855655)

But see, when you make statements like this, you're essentially saying "The anti-award debate will be ridiculous, so I'll just sit back and watch."

Need I remind you that you were one of the most willing participants in the pro/con Bush debates... :)

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1855656)

It's always silly when people state that they aren't taking part in a discussion. Your lack of participation speaks for itself. If you insist on being on the sidelines, just be on the sidelines and don't turn every discussion into a popcorn and kool aide spectacle. You exaggerate the debate and get the pro-Obama people riled up when you do that.

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid (Post 1855657)

Yup...guilty.

So...carry on people!

Originally Posted by Little32 (Post 1855643)

And regardless of what folks say (and sometimes you folks are just too much for me) Obama has taken huge strides in trying to reframe U. S. leadership on the global scale. He has offered the olive branch (in the form of renewed diplomatic attempts) to people and nations that no recent president has wanted to touch with a twenty-foot pole. It hasn't always worked, but it does demonstrate a desire to change the nature of U. S. foreign to a model that is more equitable and inclusive on a global scale. Many here would point to that desire as a weakness; many abroad, who are weary of the U. S. as global bully, see it as a strength.