Obama has won a Nobel
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8298580.stm


Quote:
US President Barack Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

The Nobel Committee said he was awarded it for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples".

There were a record 205 nominations for this year's prize.

The laureate - chosen by a five-member committee - wins a gold medal, a diploma and 10m Swedish kronor ($1.4m).

Congratulations to Obama! I was really surprised to hear this on the morning news today but I'm happy for him...it's quite the honor.

But I don't get it... why?

He got elected on a platform that included diplomacy-first foreign policy, nuclear disarmament, withdrawal from Iraq, and so on. And convincing a majority of the American people that going in that direction is difficult but doable, especially in this day and age.

And he is on the (slow) road to accomplishing his goals and that is, in part probably why he won.

He has attempted to change (with some success) many people's (and foreign leaders') opinions and attitudes about the US and in doing so, is starting to open doors where only hostility existed before.

People are free to disagree, it goes without saying.

The Committee's reason for why.

So, if I go around spouting off that I want change, peace, and nuclear disarmament, etc. without actually producing results can I win the Nobel Peace Prize too?

Wow! What a great honor. I didn't expect it so soon.

I wonder what he will do with the prize money.:D :p

I understand that he's been doing what he thinks is best along these lines (greater international cooperation, strategic pressure on North Korea, etc.). This award seems like it's all about intentions, though, and it appears to me that giving the award to the President is more about sending a message than rewarding him for any sort of extraordinary measures that he's put in place.

I don't know...I mean, it's great for the President to receive the award, but it seems a little premature to me.

For reals! lol. I just don't understand why he got it. Everything that was on his platform he really hasn't done. The Iraq stuff isn't gonna happen for a long while, I just had a handful of friends get sent back....so much for withdrawing.

Obama probably didn't have anything to do with this, so idk if you can really blame him, but I call some shenanigans on this. More attempts at brown nosing or something?

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.

He has had very little success in anything related to peace. All he has done is continued the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. As people have said, all he's done is spout idealism...not done anything. We've had plenty of Presidents spout the same idealism.

I think the Committee believes this will give legitimacy to his Presidency and is trying to support it. However, I think this will only turn people further against him than they already are.

and that is exactly it.

I think people get the idea that the Nobel Prize is about what is already done rather than in all actuality it's about the concerted attempt at what you are trying to do.

It's not a reward, moreso a reminder to keep up the good works.

And no I don't think Obama had anything to do with this, and was probably just as shocked as everyone was when the announcement was made this morning.

Obama doesn't deserve a Nobel Prize.

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.

Only if you're 1) coming behind a President who a lot of people didn't like; 2) claiming to rescue a now desperate world that wants "change;" and 3) the first Black President.

Definitely. Once again, Obama is being praised just for brushing his teeth in the morning.

@DS

Right, and the article basically says as much.

From the article: "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve".

"It is a clear signal that we want to advocate the same as he has done," he said.


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 policy 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.

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.

And this looks like it's gonna be one of those days...I will just sit back and watch this one play out.

Join me and pop some popcorn. The usual players will pop in momentarily.

You may want to read this This kind of adds to what KSig said earlier.

Myth: The prize is awarded to recognize efforts for peace, human rights and democracy only after they have proven successful.

More often, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments.

this was the sentiment on Fox News this morning when I heard the news.

I love this though:

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

I'm just waiting for Roland, Dyson and Donna Brazile to weigh in on CNN.

Oh get over it.

Once again, don't say anything about Obama or think critically about anything pertaining to him because the crybabies will waaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

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

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

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?

ETA: It never ceases to amaze me how sensitive people can be to criticism when it's aimed at their favorite politician. I guess that's one similarity between some Bush supporters and some Obama supporters...

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.

Nope...not making it anything. I agree (to a point) with 'all the rest of you".

However, I would like to state for those that wondered 'why'. I simply wanted to provide info and an opinion as to 'why'.



I am just merely stating that at this point with some of what i read, I am watching to see how both pro and cons play out...that is it.

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.

I knew you would say that...thanks.

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... :)

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.

Yup...guilty.

So...carry on people!

Nobody has to do it...sometimes some of you folks do it for yourselves...so...that's it for me. :D

Welp, thanks to DS we can have a discussion. To what do we owe this honor?

Back to the topic before Little32 and DS got sidetracked:

Obama doesn't deserve a Nobel Prize.

But many Presidents have done this before and not been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. FDR's Good Neighbor policy represented a dramatic shift in what generally had been a very bloody involvement in Latin America into an uninvolved non-parental role. This was early before the war. FDR's policy was far more impactful than anything Barack Obama has ever done to date.

Mahatma Gandhi has never won it. Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini have been nominated at one time or another. One of the worst Presidents in American history Jimmy Carter, has won it. Henry Kissinger won it. I can assume that the Peace Prize is really just a slam against Barack Obama, some sort of insult.

Nobel Prize's are political.

Speculation:
Winning one binds the Administration to whatever its promises/plans are (whatever they are) and theoretically prevents the Administration from bombing/going to war with particular countries.

Administrations are always bound to political promises with the international community at some level, and this one just came in the form of a Nobel Prize.

So, yeah, Obama wasn't given one because HE deserved it. :)

When I heard this on NPR today, in that crazy state between sleep and wakefulness, I thought it was BS. I took sinus meds last night and had crazy dreams so anything was possible.

Pssstt...

Gandhi almost won it but...the year he was supposed to get it, he suffered from a slight case of death by assassination and the committee does not award it post humously. Just thought I would slightly correct you on that from the sidelines. Oh, and Carter doesn't count because his was after the fact and for that matter add in Gore too because he never won the Presidency. Sorry for chirping from the sidelines, just wanna make sure you keep your sh*t straight! **damn...getting crumbs all over my good couch!!**

You do realize that a nomination can be submitted by anyone in the field, right? Also, it's not an official designation--it's not as if Hitler was nominated for a Grammy for his audiobook version of Mein Kampf. Apparently, all sorts of random people are nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize because of that open entry qualification. Don't you think, as dictators, that Hitler, Stalin, or Mussolini had people who were willing to nominate them?

Furthermore, Carter did not win it for what he did during his Presidency, but for what he did after he left the Oval Office. That distinction has always been made.

This is not about Obama. He did not award himself this prize. But ok.

This is about Obama, the Nobel committee, and whatever else people want to comment on.

I appreciate the SHORT press conference. :)

Obama says he will accept the Prize as a call to action and a source of inspiration. Well, that's why the Award was awarded prematurely--it was an award for the promises of the Administration.

And, yes Obama, this Award will create pressure for you and most likely influence your decisions from this point on.

There was quite a bit of buzz about this in my first lecture this morning (and about us bombing the moon too, but that's a whole 'nother issue). The sentiment of 95% of my classmates was that the award is extremely premature given the lack of any significant results from Obama.

The other 5% would watch Obama back over their puppy, and still think the sun shined out his.......

@Phil

Well, my statement was not about Obama. The Nobel Foundation is a private foundation that has specific criteria that it uses to select the folks that will be awarded a prize in any given year. The folks designated to vote answer only to their collective interpretation of that criteria. By virtue of the fact that they have selected Obama to receive the award, he deserves it.

It is, in a lot of ways, akin to sorority or fraternity membership. It's like someone telling you that a Delta, who you voted into the organization, does not deserve to be a Delta. What would your response be? I am sure that it would be something like, who are you--an outsider--to tell me--a member--who deserves to be voted into my organization.

That's a stretch.

Ok, I will qualify, he deserves it in the eyes of the folks that get to make that decision, and, in this situation, they are the only ones who really count.