News Decline and fall of the Nobel Peace Prize

[Mattara]

I find it hilarious that the peace prize is giving to someone who is actively involved in at least a handful of wars at this very moment (war in afghanistan, war in iraq, war on terrorism, war on drugs, war on poverty).

 

[Hans de Vries]

World reacts to Obama peace prize

NATO SECRETARY GENERAL ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN

I warmly congratulate President Obama on winning the Nobel Peace Prize.
President Obamahas made extraordinary efforts to strengthen international
diplomacy and co-operation between peoples. He has also demonstrated his
strong commitment to help build peace and defend fundamental human rights,
including through the atlantic alliance. This honour is well deserved.FRENCH PRESIDENT NICOLAS SARKOZY

It confirms, finally, America's return to the hearts of the people of the world...
you can count on my resolute support and that of France.SOUHAYR BELHASSEN, PRESIDENT OF INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama is a way of encouraging him to not
renege on the universal principles that he has championed. We would have
preferred a human rights defender like Oleg Orlov from Memorial in Russia or
Natalia Estemirova [human rights activist murdered in Chechnya].ALI AKABR JAVANFEKR, AIDE TO IRANIAN PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD

We hope that this gives him the incentive to walk in the path of bringing justice
to the world order.We are not upset and we hope that by receiving this prize he
will start taking practical steps to remove injustice in the world.SIAMAK HIRAI, SPOKESMAN FOR AFGHAN PRESIDENT HAMID KARZAI

We congratulate Obama for winning the Nobel. His hard work and his new vision on
global relations, his will and efforts for creating friendly and good relations at global
level and global peace make him the appropriate recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.MIKHAIL GORBACHEV, FORMER SOVIET LEADER AND NOBEL PRIZE WINNER

I am happy. What Obama did during his presidency is a big signal, he gave hope. In
these hard times, people who are capable of taking responsibility, who have a vision,
commitment and political will should be supported.JAN OBERG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE TRANSNATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR PEACE AND FUTURE RESEARCH

I am concerned at the drift of the prize that is invariably going to politicians who have
been, or who are still, involved in warfare. Obama has not left Iraq, he has stepped it
up in Afghanistan. It is somewhat paradoxical to give it to a president who presides
over the largest military arsenal in world history.MOHAMED ELBARADEI, HEAD OF THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

There is nobody today in my view who is more deserving of that peace prize than
Barack Obama. In less than a year he brought a radical change in the way we look
at ourselves, in the way we look at our world. He is restoring the basic core values
that every one of us should live by - dialogue, respect, democracy, due process,
human rights, a security system that does not depend on nuclear weapons. His
dedication to these values rekindles hope that, finally, we could have a world at
peace with itself.ANGELA MERKEL, GERMAN CHANCELLOR

I would like to congratulate President Obama on the award of the Nobel Peace Prize.
In a short time he has established a new tone, creating a willingness for dialogue
and I think we all should support him to make peace in this world possible. There is
a lot do but a window of opportunity has been opened. His advocacy of a world free
of nuclear arms is an aim we all need to make real in the next few years. Again,
congratulations on this award and it is certainly an incentive for the American
president - but also for us all - to help achieve this aim.YUKIO HATOYAMA, JAPANESE PRIME MINISTER

I am really pleased. I want to congratulate him from my heart. I've seen the world
changing since President Obama took office. It was outstanding when he made the
speech in Prague calling for a nuclear-free world.KHALED AL-BATSH, AN ISLAMIC JIHAD LEADER

Obama's winning the peace prize shows these prizes are political, not governed by
the principles of credibility, values and morals. Why should Obama be given a peace
prize while his country owns the largest nuclear arsenal on Earth and his soldiers
continue to shed innocent blood in Iraq and Afghanistan?TALIBAN SPOKESMAN ZABIHULLAH MUJAHID

We have seen no change in his strategy for peace. He has done nothing for peace
in Afghanistan. He has not taken a single step for peace in Afghanistan or to make
this country stable. We condemn the award of the Noble Peace Prize for Obama.
We condemn the institute's awarding him the peace prize. We condemn this year's
peace prize as unjust.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8298802.stm

 

[noblegas]

Wow , talk radio is going to have a field day with this story. I agree with astronuc, I think he was awarded the nobel peace prize way too early , there needs to be more time to see how his foreign policy strategies play out in the middle east and elsewhere. On top of that, we still have troops in Iraq and we are injecting troops in aghanistan and we are in the process of thinking about invading iran if they don't stopped expanding there nuclear technology . How is that a form of peace? Nobody should qualify for a nobel peace prize until they actually get two or more countries to stop warring with each other and therefore should not be given out on a yearly basis. Nobody should be awarded the nobel peace prize for only saying that they will end nuclear proliferation ; There has been talk in the past for ending nuclear proliferation but has actually never been carried out. Ceasing nuclear proliferation to me means all countries with nuclear weapons, eradicating and ejecting themselves from the nuclear weapons and I do envision the United States ridden itself of all that expensive sophisticated nuclear weapons that have probably amounted to 500 billion dollars over the last 50 or so years(http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/50.aspx ).

 

[Equate]

"Barack Obama was nominated for the award in February 2009, just two weeks into his presidency. The voting occurred in June, just four months into the Obama era."

Source? Somehow I can't believe that according to this:

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/process.html

 

[cristo]

I think this was a good decision. The peace prize is usually given to people who are working to solve problems peacefully. They don't wait until such problems are solved. If it is clear that a page has been turned and a new process has been started then that's enough to award the peace price.

So basically Obama won the nobel peace prize simply because he isn't Bush?

 

[humanino]

...

Thanks for posting informed, relevant comments.

President Obama said he was "both surprised and deeply humbled" by the award.

"Let me be clear, I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations," the president said.

"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 this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women and all Americans want to build, a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents."

 

[Count Iblis]

So basically Obama won the nobel peace prize simply because he isn't Bush?

For having demonstrated to be competent at not being Bush. He is not a polarizing figure and he is willing to compromize. So, if he fails then it is not likely his fault. Had Obama not been the president but instead McCain or Hillary, this would likely not ben the case, despite them being also different from Bush.

Take e.g. the dispute with Iran. The US under Obama is willing to consider any possible solution in which Iran can be verified not to produce nuclear weapons. It is likely that under McCain or Hillary, the US would simply have demanded that Iran complies with UNSC resolutions and if Iran continues to refuse to suspend their enrichment program, they would have concluded that: "Diplomacy has failed".

If Obama's policies were to fail, it would be difficult to put the blame on him. Awarding the prize to him at this time, now that he has demonstrated to be flexible to the maximum extent, pre-emtively puts the blame on any possible failures on his opponents, which is reasonable.

 

[Count Iblis]

NATO SECRETARY GENERAL ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN

I warmly congratulate President Obama on winning the Nobel Peace Prize.
President Obamahas made extraordinary efforts to strengthen international
diplomacy and co-operation between peoples. He has also demonstrated his
strong commitment to help build peace and defend fundamental human rights,
including through the atlantic alliance. This honour is well deserved.


FRENCH PRESIDENT NICOLAS SARKOZY

It confirms, finally, America's return to the hearts of the people of the world...
you can count on my resolute support and that of France.


SOUHAYR BELHASSEN, PRESIDENT OF INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama is a way of encouraging him to not
renege on the universal principles that he has championed. We would have
preferred a human rights defender like Oleg Orlov from Memorial in Russia or
Natalia Estemirova [human rights activist murdered in Chechnya].


ALI AKABR JAVANFEKR, AIDE TO IRANIAN PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD

We hope that this gives him the incentive to walk in the path of bringing justice
to the world order.We are not upset and we hope that by receiving this prize he
will start taking practical steps to remove injustice in the world.


SIAMAK HIRAI, SPOKESMAN FOR AFGHAN PRESIDENT HAMID KARZAI

We congratulate Obama for winning the Nobel. His hard work and his new vision on
global relations, his will and efforts for creating friendly and good relations at global
level and global peace make him the appropriate recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.


MIKHAIL GORBACHEV, FORMER SOVIET LEADER AND NOBEL PRIZE WINNER

I am happy. What Obama did during his presidency is a big signal, he gave hope. In
these hard times, people who are capable of taking responsibility, who have a vision,
commitment and political will should be supported.


JAN OBERG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE TRANSNATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR PEACE AND FUTURE RESEARCH

I am concerned at the drift of the prize that is invariably going to politicians who have
been, or who are still, involved in warfare. Obama has not left Iraq, he has stepped it
up in Afghanistan. It is somewhat paradoxical to give it to a president who presides
over the largest military arsenal in world history.


MOHAMED ELBARADEI, HEAD OF THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

There is nobody today in my view who is more deserving of that peace prize than
Barack Obama. In less than a year he brought a radical change in the way we look
at ourselves, in the way we look at our world. He is restoring the basic core values
that every one of us should live by - dialogue, respect, democracy, due process,
human rights, a security system that does not depend on nuclear weapons. His
dedication to these values rekindles hope that, finally, we could have a world at
peace with itself.


ANGELA MERKEL, GERMAN CHANCELLOR

I would like to congratulate President Obama on the award of the Nobel Peace Prize.
In a short time he has established a new tone, creating a willingness for dialogue
and I think we all should support him to make peace in this world possible. There is
a lot do but a window of opportunity has been opened. His advocacy of a world free
of nuclear arms is an aim we all need to make real in the next few years. Again,
congratulations on this award and it is certainly an incentive for the American
president - but also for us all - to help achieve this aim.


YUKIO HATOYAMA, JAPANESE PRIME MINISTER

I am really pleased. I want to congratulate him from my heart. I've seen the world
changing since President Obama took office. It was outstanding when he made the
speech in Prague calling for a nuclear-free world.


KHALED AL-BATSH, AN ISLAMIC JIHAD LEADER

Obama's winning the peace prize shows these prizes are political, not governed by
the principles of credibility, values and morals. Why should Obama be given a peace
prize while his country owns the largest nuclear arsenal on Earth and his soldiers
continue to shed innocent blood in Iraq and Afghanistan?


TALIBAN SPOKESMAN ZABIHULLAH MUJAHID

We have seen no change in his strategy for peace. He has done nothing for peace
in Afghanistan. He has not taken a single step for peace in Afghanistan or to make
this country stable. We condemn the award of the Noble Peace Prize for Obama.
We condemn the institute's awarding him the peace prize. We condemn this year's
peace prize as unjust.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8298802.stm

Yoiu forgot to include the reaction of Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee.

 

[Monique]

I wonder what he will do with the money, he apparently is not convinced as well that he has earned it.

 

[noblegas]

For having demonstrated to be competent at not being Bush. He is not a polarizing figure and he is willing to compromize. So, if he fails then it is not likely his fault. Had Obama not been the president but instead McCain or Hillary, this would likely not ben the case, despite them being also different from Bush.

How is he not a polarizing figure? Most republicans have voted against his policies and legislative proposals. That seems very polarizing to me. He has demonstrated to be competent in terms of being able to put a sentence together correctly , not in terms of his actually getting things done. He has not yet proposed any legislation to teared down the patriot act, We don't know if his health plan reforms and his stimulus package will actually helped americans, too early to tell.

Take e.g. the dispute with Iran. The US under Obama is willing to consider any possible solution in which Iran can be verified not to produce nuclear weapons.

Seems like the Obama administation wants to imposed an ultimatum rather than compromise with Iran , since they don't want iran to possesses any nuclear weapons(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090925/ap_on_go_pr_wh/g20_summit_obama_iran ).

If Obama's policies were to fail, it would be difficult to put the blame on him. Awarding the prize to him at this time, now that he has demonstrated to be flexible to the maximum extent, pre-emtively puts the blame on any possible failures on his opponents, which is reasonable.

Who are we to blame if obama's policies were to fail if not the obama administration ? Did we not blame the Bush adminstration(rightfully so) for his failed policies in Iraq and blame his adminstation for completely on the fourth amendment?

 

[Count Iblis]

How is he not a polarizing figure? Most republicans have voted against his policies and legislative proposals. That seems very polarizing to me. He has demonstrated to be competent in terms of being able to put a sentence together correctly , not in terms of his actually getting things done. He has not yet proposed any legislation to teared down the patriot act, We don't know if his health plan reforms and his stimulus package will actually helped americans, too early to tell.

Obama has taken into account criticism from Republicans. That the Republicans have decided to oppose Obama for the sake of opposing him, is their decision. A few days ago some Republicans have warned about being too obstructive to health care reform.

Seems like the Obama administation wants to imposed an ultimatum rather than compromise with Iran , since they don't want iran to possesses any nuclear weapons(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090925/ap_on_go_pr_wh/g20_summit_obama_iran ).

Yes, but now on reasonable grounds. I.e. Iran has to show that they are not persuing nuclear weapons and they can propose how they want to proceed on that matter. The US is now not dictating to Iran what they can or cannot do as far as civilian nuclear energy is concerned. The old Bush policy: "Iran must stop to enrich uranium, or else.." is no longer the US policy.

Who are we to blame if obama's policies were to fail if not the obama administration ? Did we not blame the Bush adminstration(rightfully so) for his failed policies in Iraq and blame his adminstation for completely on the fourth amendment?

If Blix had found evidence that Saddam had stockples of WMD and that Saddam was unwilling to disarm, and he had asked the UNSC to consider the military option, then no one would have blamed Bush for starting the Iraq war. Of course, things could have gone wrong later on in that war, but there would have been no fingerpointing at Bush at the start of the war.

 

[Pattonias]

For having demonstrated to be competent at not being Bush. He is not a polarizing figure and he is willing to compromize. So, if he fails then it is not likely his fault. Had Obama not been the president but instead McCain or Hillary, this would likely not ben the case, despite them being also different from Bush.

I think that we are walking on dangerous ground if we say that his success is his doing, but his failure is due to someone else. One thing you have to remember about the American government is that everything gets blamed on the President... Everything

We can't forget the several hundred elected officials who are actually responsible for the policies being made. The people in both(all) the political parties.

This double standard is evident with congress today. Congress messes up and it gets blamed on the President and the same people who voted on the problem get re-elected, while the President takes the heat.

(On a lighter note, I feel sorry for Obama as he is going to look like Abraham Lincoln when he leaves office. All that stress is going to make him lose like 30 pounds. Bush aged like 20 years.)

 

[arildno]

I think this is the Nobel prize award with the least backing in the Norwegian people that I have ever seen.
In the Dagbladet poll, out of 65000+ respondents, 55% are against this decision:
http://stem.start.no/result.php?id=8685

 

[G01]

So basically Obama won the nobel peace prize simply because he isn't Bush?

It's like winning the Nobel Prize in Physics because your not a "quantum mechanics tells us we can control things with our minds" crackpot...

 

[leroyjenkens]

If it was up to Americans, he would've probably won several different Nobel Prizes. So it could have been worse.
Remember when he wrote that excuse from class note for that little girl because she was attending one of his speeches? There you go, that's a literature Nobel Prize.

 

[Pattonias]

Remember when he wrote that excuse from class note for that little girl because she was attending one of his speeches?

All politics aside I hadn't heard about that. Thats pretty cool.


--------------------------------------------------------------
I think for the most part the Americans will feel the same way most everyone else will.
There will always be exception though.

 

[edward]

It's like winning the Nobel Prize in Physics because your not a "quantum mechanics tells us we can control things with our minds" crackpot...

A friend of mine commented that it is like winning the prize for attempted chemistry.

On the serious side eight years of fear mongering had the world a bit upset with the USA. To paraphrase a lot of media accounts, the prize was awarded for being the Anti-Bush.

 

[noblegas]

Obama has taken into account criticism from Republicans. That the Republicans have decided to oppose Obama for the sake of opposing him, is their decision. A few days ago some Republicans have warned about being too obstructive to health care reform.

Why can't you see the partisan bias on both sides? Why can't there be democrats voting with him on all issues for the sake of supporting him? Most people are satisfied with their health insurance plans and don't want big changes in healthcare..( http://www.gallup.com/poll/102934/majority-americans-satisfied-their-own-healthcare.aspx)

Yes, but now on reasonable grounds. I.e. Iran has to show that they are not persuing nuclear weapons and they can propose how they want to proceed on that matter. The US is now not dictating to Iran what they can or cannot do as far as civilian nuclear energy is concerned. The old Bush policy: "Iran must stop to enrich uranium, or else.." is no longer the US policy.

Why should Iran have to show they are not persuing nuclear weapons? It is not our job to tell other countries how to run their nuclear program, especially a country such as the US who currently possesses the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. Why are we allow to have nuclear weapons but not Iran. And if iran decides to go ahead with their nuclear weapons program, then do we have a right to invade iran? I don't think so.

"Iran must stop to enrich uranium, or else.." is no longer a US policy

I don't think soo.

... PITTSBURGH – Backed by other world powers, President Barack Obama declared Friday that Iran is speeding down a path to confrontation and demanded that Tehran quickly "come clean" on all nuclear efforts and open a newly revealed secret site for close international inspection. He said he would not rule out military action if the Iranians refuse. ...

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090925/ap_on_go_pr_wh/g20_summit_obama_iran

 

[Pengwuino]

On the serious side eight years of fear mongering had the world a bit upset with the USA. To paraphrase a lot of media accounts, the prize was awarded for being the Anti-Bush.

Why didn't they just give the award to the city of San Francisco then.

The general consensus seems to be that he was awarded the prize for not being Bush and saying he's going to do a lot of stuff. Hilary must be pretty pissed at the moment. She just lost out on a nobel prize.

 

[Pattonias]

Why should Iran have to show they are not persuing nuclear weapons? It is not our job to tell other countries how to run their nuclear program, especially a country such as the US who currently possesses the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. Why are we allow to have nuclear weapons but not Iran. And if iran decides to go ahead with their nuclear weapons program, then do we have a right to invade iran? I don't think so.



I don't think soo. source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090925/ap_on_go_pr_wh/g20_summit_obama_iran

Apart from the obvious hypocrisy of anyone having nuclear weapons, we don't have terrorist organizations within our government who's idea of fighting a war is strapping a bomb to one of your own men and blowing him up in a crowded civilian area. I think we are worried about who will end up with the weapons once they are being produced. The only reason the Cold War stayed cold is due to mutually assured destruction... What happens when one person doesn't care if they are killed?

Unfortunately this is getting off topic. I'll refrain from arguing any more on this point in this thread.

 

[SticksandStones]

Why didn't they just give the award to the city of San Francisco then.

The general consensus seems to be that he was awarded the prize for not being Bush and saying he's going to do a lot of stuff. Hilary must be pretty pissed at the moment. She just lost out on a nobel prize.

Because the city of San Francisco isn't in charge of the country who's policies pretty much dictate everything else in the world.

 

[noblegas]

Apart from the obvious hypocrisy of anyone having nuclear weapons, we don't have terrorist organizations within our government who's idea of fighting a war is strapping a bomb to one of your own men and blowing him up in a crowded civilian area. I think we are worried about who will end up with the weapons once they are being produced. The only reason the Cold War stayed cold is due to mutually assured destruction... What happens when one person doesn't care if they are killed?

Unfortunately this is getting off topic. I'll refrain from arguing any more on this point in this thread.

Yeah, I don't want to stray off topic anymore either. But I will make one final response: the US has supported or allowed terrorism within our on borders(KKK terrorizing blacks and other non-whites in the south and elsewhere, invading and masscrating the lands of the native americans to make way for american settlements) and abroad(Israel was created based on terrorists acts, for 1 million palestinians were expelled from their home, many considered dropping two nuclear bombs on innocent civilians and detoppling newly form democracy in third world countries and replacing them with dictatorships could be considered acts of terrorism. )

 

[Hans de Vries]

The general consensus seems to be that he was awarded the prize for not being Bush and saying he's going to do a lot of stuff. Hilary must be pretty pissed at the moment. She just lost out on a nobel prize.

In that case Bush may be really pissed off that he didn't share in the Noble price, since if it
wasn't for his hard work all those years then Obama wouldn't have had a change...

Regards, Hans

 

[Pengwuino]

Because the city of San Francisco isn't in charge of the country who's policies pretty much dictate everything else in the world.

It was a joke.

A lot of the reactions about his getting the Nobel Prize make me wonder how stupid are people anyhow. If people believe him receiving this prize is going to help him in whatever he does, how dumb are the people who he will have conferences with/debate with/whatever be? The Prize now seems practically worthless (+ 1.3 million dollars), so what merit does it hold? Is some country going to say "You know what, we were on the fence about building a nuclear weapon, but you having that Prize tipped us in favor of not doing it". I mean really, what does having that Prize bring to the table that Obama minus the Prize can't?

 

[cristo]

Because the city of San Francisco isn't in charge of the country who's policies pretty much dictate everything else in the world.

Gotta love the arrogance of (some of) you yanks

 

[arildno]

The Prize now seems practically worthless (+ 1.3 million dollars), so what merit does it hold?

3 individuals (i.e the majority within the NC committe) determine each year who gets the Nobel Peace Prize.

In order to maintain the Prize's status, those 3 cannot do as they chose to do this year.


The Nobel Peace Prize has managed to maintain some political relevance, because former members of the NC knew that it was not their job to play politics, but rather, to give due recognition for a work well done.


The present committe represents a new step in the politization, and process of self-destruction, of the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

[turbo]

3 individuals (i.e the majority within the NC committe) determine each year who gets the Nobel Peace Prize.

In order to maintain the Prize's status, those 3 cannot do as they chose to do this year.


The Nobel Peace Prize has managed to maintain some political relevance, because former members of the NC knew that it was not their job to play politics, but rather, to give due recognition for a work well done.


The present committe represents a new step in the politization, and process of self-destruction, of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Is that really the case? Did not the original prize embody a kind of political activism? As in: "We recognize your goals and ambitions and wish to free you from some financial constraints and encourage you to continue your work."?

There are some dead people who did some valuable work and whose foundations might benefit greatly from the monetary portion of the peace prize, but they are ineligible. I thought that this was because their necritude prevents them from continuing their work, though I could be wrong.

BTW, I thought the prize was way premature. Obama has to do a lot more than dial back US unilateralism and agree to talk with some governments that have been long-regarded as pariahs by US ideologues (left and right) before we can expect real progress toward world peace. Congress appropriates money, but the President has veto power. I hope Obama has the cojones to veto military aid to countries that come to us begging for money, and then squander it and/or refuse to engage with us in conflict-resolution in their regions.

 

[Astronuc]

Is that really the case? Did not the original prize embody a kind of political activism? As in: "We recognize your goals and ambitions and wish to free you from some financial constraints and encourage you to continue your work."?

And Obama is not financially constrained the way many others are. He just signs the bills that Congress writes.

There are some dead people who did some valuable work and whose foundations might benefit greatly from the monetary portion of the peace prize, but they are ineligible. I thought that this was because their necritude prevents them from continuing their work, though I could be wrong.

Nobel's are not awarded posthumously, but in the case of the Peace Prize, institutions can be awarded the prize, even if one of their primary persons is deceased.

BTW, I thought the prize was way premature.

It is WAY, WAY premature. The horse just left the gate, and a whole lot of race remains to be run.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm actually going to defend Obama. An award of this magnitude, this early in his career, is clearly too soon. This is going to put very high expectations on him as well as much closer scrutiny.

This is from Time.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091009/us_time/08599192939500
"The last thing Barack Obama needed at this moment in his presidency and our politics is a prize for a promise.

Inspirational words have brought him a long way - including to the night in Grant Park less than a year ago when he asked that we "join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it's been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand." (See pictures of Obama in Grant Park.)

By now there are surely more callouses on his lips than his hands. He, like every new president, has reckoned with both the power and the danger of words, dangers that are especially great for one who wields them as skillfully as he. A promise beautifully made raises hopes especially high: we will revive the economy while we rein in our spending; we will make health care simpler, safer, cheaper, fairer. We will rid the Earth of its most lethal weapons. We will turn green and clean. We will all just get along. (See pictures of eight months of Obama's diplomacy.)

So when reality bites, it chomps down hard. The Nobel committee cited "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." His critics fault some of those efforts: those who favor a missile shield for Poland or a troop surge in Afghanistan or a harder line on Iran. But even his fans know that none of the dreams have yet come true, and a prize for even dreaming them can feed the illusion that they have. (See the Top 10 Obama Backlash Moments)"

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/09/nobel.peace.prize/index.html

I'm looking for a link that will prove/disprove that voting was cut off in February 2009 - just weeks after Obama took office. Does anyone know the definitive cut-off date for nominations or when the actual voting took place?

 

[Cyrus]

He should give the prize to someone that deserves it.

 

[Astronuc]

I'm looking for a link that will prove/disprove that voting was cut off in February 2009 - just weeks after Obama took office. Does anyone know the definitive cut-off date for nominations or when the actual voting took place?

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/process.html

The process diagram indicates that in February and March, a group generates a shortlist, then the list is reviewed from March to August, and the prize winners are chosen in October.

 

[Pengwuino]

He should give the prize to someone that deserves it.

I can imagine Kanye West interrupting Obama when he receives the award and declares Beyonce deserved the Peace Prize instead.

 

[turbo]

Obama has already said that the monetary prize will be donated to charity.

 

[jobyts]

Here's the mail I got today afternoon from the President...
I hope he won't mind if I forward the mail to the PF folks.

Jobyts --

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

 

[Astronuc]

Here's the mail I got today afternoon from the President...
I hope he won't mind if I forward the mail to the PF folks.

Hmmm - he left out the DONATE button.

 

[Pengwuino]

Here's the mail I got today afternoon from the President...
I hope he won't mind if I forward the mail to the PF folks.

I love this part

Jobyts --

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.

Reminds me of how my friends use to call each other in real life by their world of warcraft names.

Oh and if you replaced your real name by your PF names for privacy issues, don't tell us, it's way funnier this way.

 

[lisab]

I love this part



Reminds me of how my friends use to call each other in real life by their world of warcraft names.

Oh and if you replaced your real name by your PF names for privacy issues, don't tell us, it's way funnier this way.

Maybe that is his (her?) real name. I assume yours is real too.

 

[Pengwuino]

Maybe that is his (her?) real name. I assume yours is real too.

That's Mr. Pengwuino to you.

 

[mheslep]

There were so many opportunities for powerful political and diplomatic wins here in declining the prize - it stuns me that Obama failed to do so.

• In one stroke it would have squashed all of the 'messiah', 'in love with his image', 9000 camera appearances a day, too much celebrity criticisms levelled at him.
• He could have held the podium for an hour speaking persuasively about what the prize should mean, I think without sounding unappreciative, to include comparisons to American leadership in the past from the likes of Theodore Roosevelt.
• He could have named any number of deserving candidates to great effect around the world:
  -Any one of the more peaceful dissidents in Iran; thus pressure the mullahs and protect the dissidents via prestige. Only with the help of dissidents will Iran's bomb making plans will be stopped.
  -Iraqi leadership. The world's eye is off of Iraq now, but there is no guarantee that it will continue in relative calm. Pointing out a candidate there, like say al-Sistani who is widely respected and consistently called for peace throughout the worst of the violence and at great danger to himself would go further to improve the odds.
  -Burma. Recall the massacre of the monks 2007? Put the spotlight back on Rangoon.
  -Envoys Holbrooke and Mitchell are both deserving, a shout out from the podium must aid their negotiating positions.

 

[Hurkyl]

That's Mr. Pengwuino to you.

Mister? That's a funny title for a bird.

 

[Pengwuino]

There were so many opportunities for powerful political and diplomatic wins here in declining the prize - it stuns me that Obama failed to do so.

BUT, it would remove all doubt that the Peace Prize is completely political. It would do too much damage to the Prize's reputation and to people who have already received it who genuinely deserved it. If he accepts it, you can at least argue that it was simply a big big stretch to give it to him or at the worst, a mistake. If the recipient doesn't even accept it with these circumstances, that's even worse than saying it's a mistake IMHO.

I see it as saying, for example, how a referee calls something in a sport. If the referee makes a terrible mistake and let's say, people claim its because the referee favors one team, then that's fairly bad. However, if the team the call favored even said it was wrong, that brings the whole system into question; that even people who would benefit call attention to an error is huge.

 

[turbo]

Mister? That's a funny title for a bird.

Pairs of Mr. Pengwuinos have happily protected and incubated eggs and hatched and reared the chicks.

 

[Hurkyl]

It would do too much damage to the Prize's reputation

Damaging an undeserved prestigious reputation is a good thing -- I don't see how Obama declining would do too much.

 

[lisab]

In the near future, President Obama will make a difficult decision about Afghanistan. How ironic will it be should he decide to send in ~40,000 more troops (quite possible, maybe even likely)?

And [STRIKE]I want to believe that this award will affect that decision[/STRIKE]...I really don't think it will.

oops, edit: I want to believe it *won't* affect that decision!

 

[Hurkyl]

And I want to believe that this award will affect that decision...I really don't think it will.

I want my elected leaders to make decisions based on available facts and designed to best achieve good^* goals.

A leader whose decisions are influenced by silly political stunts like this is exactly what I don't want.


*: I won't attempt a definition of "good"[/size]

 

[mheslep]

BUT, it would remove all doubt that the Peace Prize is completely political. It would do too much damage to the Prize's reputation and to people who have already received it who genuinely deserved it. If he accepts it, you can at least argue that it was simply a big big stretch to give it to him or at the worst, a mistake. If the recipient doesn't even accept it with these circumstances, that's even worse than saying it's a mistake IMHO.

I see it as saying, for example, how a referee calls something in a sport. If the referee makes a terrible mistake and let's say, people claim its because the referee favors one team, then that's fairly bad. However, if the team the call favored even said it was wrong, that brings the whole system into question; that even people who would benefit call attention to an error is huge.

I agree - we are in the latter condition, and thus the need to take this opportunity to stop the slouch towards empty meaning. Obama could have done that today in an hour. It need not have been all critical either. Presidents, good ones, are adept at saying 'look how great this could be' without scolding.

 

[turbo]

Damaging an undeserved prestigious reputation is a good thing -- I don't see how Obama declining would do too much.

I'm with you on this one. Obama could have said something like "I have not accomplished enough to warrant this prestigious honor, and I ask that the committee please accept my heartfelt appreciation, and choose an alternate recipient. Please choose somebody who has already accomplished much to advance world peace, and who might have some financial constraints limiting their work that this prize might alleviate, so that they can continue their work, and perhaps expand their influence and magnify the good that they have already accomplished." No harm, no foul. Obama comes off as gracious (when is he not?), the committee gets to continue their work and re-evaluate the nominees, and everybody (including Obama) benefits when the award is made. If a woman in a Muslim regime like Indonesia or a repressive state like Myanmar got the prize for trying to secure basic freedoms for other women or dissidents in general, would that be so bad? Just think - $1.3M is going to go a hell of a lot further in a 3rd world country than it would here. Sometimes, establishing little pockets of freedom and justice can advance the cause of a greater peace, since terrorism is so frequently brewing in places that enjoy neither.

 

[mheslep]

Damaging an undeserved prestigious reputation is a good thing -- I don't see how Obama declining would do too much.

Exactly

 

[lisab]

I want my elected leaders to make decisions based on available facts and designed to best achieve good^* goals.

A leader whose decisions are influenced by silly political stunts like this is exactly what I don't want.


*: I won't attempt a definition of "good"[/size]

Oops, see my edited post.

 

[rootX]

He is too sexy when he is on the stage.

Or,

maybe judges wanted to have influence on Obama's future decisions.