Obama's Nobel Is Premature, Historians and Political Scientists Say
The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama is an "embarrassment" to the process, a presidential historian told FOXNews.com.

fuck

Bush is probably pissed off that he didn't share the award with Obama. He's probably thinking "If I wasn't such an international asshole for eight years Obama wouldn't have gotten diddly. Obama may have scored the goal, but I should get credit for the assist! Heh heh."

Considering the first reaction of conservatives and liberals alike around here and all of the message boards I've visited today is to think this is ridiculous (in a joking way, not really angry), I don't see how him winning this furthers the larger goal of getting people to view him more positively. This is going to be a running joke for a long time. The issue here is giving someone an award before they have accomplished anything.

This is like putting Mark Sanchez into the pro football hall of fame today. Sure, he says all the right things, is great looking, has played well for 3 out of his first 4 games, seems to be able to handle the NY media and might very well be a legit star QB some day...but it's a bit early to enshrine him right now.

The way I look at it, it's just going to add to the unrealistic hopes and dreams of those who voted for him and those around the world who think he is The Answer to all that ails the US and, as an extention of our global power/influence, the world.

Maybe it's a little premature, but Nobel Peace Prizes have historically been sort of about potential anyway. It's not like the prizes awarded for science where one can actually see the fruits of one's work. I, personally, don't have a better candidate off the top of my head. They're probably out there. But there's a lot of hand-wringing in this thread, my word.

Hand-wringing? About what? I think the overwhelming reaction is laughter.

about whether or not this is GOOD for Obama. I know you don't give a shit. But personally I see this as, "okay, nobel prize, cool." But more than that I feel it puts more attention on the direction of his presidency in terms of actual peacekeeping strides which need to be taken. It's still early, we'll see where this goes.

He did order the closing of Guantanamo though. That's a much bigger step than most past presidents have taken. Not to mention a more open dialogue with Cuba.

Well, that's the thing - he talked big on peace during the campaign because people by and large wanted an end to the war. We long debated in the campaign threads whether that would be the right thing to do (at least as quickly as he and especially Hillary were talking), given what the next president was inheriting. And I think he's come to realize that you just can't come in and order all of our troops out of Iraq/Afghanistan like people who voted for him wanted - it's much more complicated than that. Again - here is where fluffy speeches on ending "wrong wars" and such that won him so much support conflicts with what he's having to deal with in terms of the realities of running the country.

Personally, I don't think this is a good thing for him, because it will either (a) put unrealistic expectations on him that he will never be able to fulfill, or (b ) prompt him into taking actions to live up to the award that are not well thought-out and adverse to our best interests or the best interests of people in that region.

Like I said, it's still early, we'll see where this goes.

To be honest though, I don't really think it's going to affect his future performance, it will only affect perception of it.

In the hindsight of a few hours later, let's try this again.


In his first few days in office, President Obama (among other things):

1) Started the process of closing Gitmo

2) Began to actually set the date for troop withdrawals from Iraq

3) Officially ended the US' current policy of torture

4) Opened up an actual dialogue with the percieved "enemy of the Bush regime", the Muslim people. (I am purposely painting this black/white)


Also, if you stick with the theory that the Nobel actually sets the stage for the recipient to live up to the expectations, then I think you could argue that big speeches that Obama has made abroad, to the "muslim nation", if you will-- these were pretty "nobel".

I think this theory is quite sound. It seems that the idea of the Nobel is to reward the person in the world who is trying the hardest to lend an olive branch to a difficult international situation. If this is indeed the case, then I take back my over reaction, and I agree that yes, President Obama deserves the prize more than anyone else in the world, at this time.

I'll do a little more research on this, and check to see when Kissinger, Carter, and Arafat got theirs, exactly.

NTM the fact that obviously, the world perceives him as a "peace-maker", by expecting him to muzzle rabid Harvard professors, and over zealous hip-hop stars, etc.

Come on guys, let's get real here...Obama is waging war in 3 countries as we speak. Typical US Imperialist president here, at least thus far. Just because he made some improvements on the ridiculous policies of the last guy doesn't mean he should be lauded as a man of peace when, in fact, he is anything but.

Time will tell. Here's what the Nobel committee said:


"for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples"

Does this mean we get the Olympics after all?

Geez people calm down. People are ripping Obama like he went out and campaigned for this award.

Yeah, I still remember the day he declared war in Afghanistan and Ira....oh wait. This is a fabrication of reality.

if the vote was taken in feb as i've heard, i'd be curious to know whether the same result would come were the vote today

or maybe nobody else gave a shit about peace this past year

i think maybe current politicians should be ineligible

Nominations were February, actual voting/deciding was later, right?

Don't see any reason this makes more sense in February than September, if all that crap about diplomacy etc is to be believed.

I've got everyone's interests in mind when I say this is an appropriate time for a peace rally.

I was thinking of Iraq, Afghanistan, and also Pakistan. We haven't declared war (as usual) over there, just drop our bombs every day. You do know about all the US Drones going about commiting acts of war, right? Please don't talk about fabricating reality when you're apparently buying into a fabrication yourself.

You said Obama is waging war. That's simply not true, he's managing wars waged by the prior administration.

He's managing them by continuing to wage them.

I mean, I don't expect (or want, or think it appropriate) that he immediately pull our troops, but let's not play semantics. He may not have started them, but he's continuing them because it is necessary. The view ought to be of the government's actions as a whole, and not where one administration ended and the next began. He's dealing with the circumstances he inherited, and those circumstances dictate continuing many of the same policies for the near future.

And I would agree with that, but to say he's some sort of war-monger is just inaccurate.

Not if you really think that Obama is like Hitler.

The poster (like myself) just wants it noted for the record that Obama "didn't start the fire". Semantics or not, sorry-- but no Bush comparison is ever fair. There will never be another president like Bush.

Thank God.

i have no idea why people think the Nobel is about honoring a resume. they're trying to reach out and exert influence over global cooperative movements to promote peace, not award it.

it's also not an award solely for pacifists. one could make the argument that what his rhetoric has done supersedes the negative aspects of current U.S. military obligations, which he has reduced if anyone still remembers.

pretty much everyone that's nominated for one of these is deserving and it's pretty arbitrary what constitutes the greatest promotion of peace. you can make the argument for other figures but to besiege Obama is completely unjustified.

Well put.

I mean do you think rambling Rush Limbarf and the "silver badger" actually understand the political 'science' behind the socialists in Copenhagen?

Me thinks not.

sounds like honoring a resume to me.

you need to get back in touch with your heart, waylon

while i'm sure there are good answers, i have not to this point heard an argument made as to who should have won if not obama

There's just nothing this guy can do to appease his opponents.

Stick to his issues and prevail, and get accused of hammering agendas through congress and "forcing American society to the left."

Attempt a series of completely bipartisan proposals (never mind the lack of any precedent of his predecessors in doing this, or the simple fact that majorities in any group will inevitably control the agenda) and abandon whatever truly progressive visions he has left, and still get crucified by opponents for it. Any honest attempt at compromise would be painted as weakness by his critics and an example of him breaking his campaign promises.

Abandon his health care plans -- an unlikely scenario but seemingly the only thing that could satisfy the right wing, right? -- and only face further attacks from opponents, not placated by a concession to their wishes but energized, vindicated, and ready to go in for the kill, whatever it takes.

Try to help bring something good to the country like the Olympics and be chastised for wasting your time and holding yourself up as some kind of vapid celebrity or "rock star." Be present as America wins the Olympics and an angry reception on the right with lots of explanations as to why the Olympics will be bad for the country. Be present when they're given to a different nation instead and be painted as a "failure" who was clearly "rejected" by the world. Avoid the entire process and be face accusations of being unpatriotic and letting down all the citizens who needed jobs that the Olympics would eventually create.

If Bush had called off the Iraq war before going in, halted his pursuit of warrantless wiretapping, repealed the biggest tax cuts to the wealthy, or pursued a more cooperative foreign policy, his opponents would have welcomed his actions and viewed them as encouraging signs of progress and promise. On the contrary, Obama's opponents and critics are simply immovable and view any action he takes through a negative lens, interpreting his policies and actions through whatever reasoning is most useful in their single-minded approach to utterly destroying him.

I'm really having a hard time figuring out what the right wants Obama to do, other than to continue being a scapegoat for all our country's problems. (Whether or not we should care what they think, or whether they have a single rational idea for dealing with any of the complicated problems we face today, are completely different matters.) Their responses to his every move over the past nine months have been baseless, cynical, and embarrassingly juvenile. They've been invited to participate but cry about being excluded. They've been asked to help craft solutions to complex, difficult problems, and have contributed nothing but rhetoric and rage. They do nothing to address the festering fringes of their party or to quell the long-discounted lies about the President that still persist. Nothing less than a complete invalidation and reversal of last year's election seems likely to satisfy them at this point.

Morgan Tsvangirai, Paddy Ashdown, Clinton, Mandela...

I'm guessing it was a situation with 5 names & Obama got 21%

well said. it has gotten to the point where the left is realizing that it's ok to say it like it is - the right has consistently been the opponent of logic and reasoning and stand in the way of all things positive, it would seem. it is a nationwide psychological crisis - like one big cranky child throwing a tantrum. not to side with one party, but at the moment it seems appropriate to look at the situation as you have in the above few paragraphs.

I think there is a huge difference between Bush and Obama regarding the two wars. Bush started both wars for dubious reasons at least in regards to Iraq. Obama has come into and has try and figure out the best way to resolve both situations. He can't just say "Ok, war is over, everyone out right NOW." there has to be an exit plan and that can take some time. The Peace Prize nominations were done in Feburary so you can't say OMG Obama won and he's putting more troops in Afghanistan. He's a war monger.

It was a surprise that Obama won but I don't believe he is wholly undeserving. In his short time in office he has changed the perception of America around the world. Just by saying diplomacy will be once again an integral part of his administration is a big thing. Also his speech to the Muslim world and his desire to close Gitmo and change the tactics of the CIA. Many of thse things he stated he would do when he was still campaigning and I'm sure are the things the Nobel voting committee looked at.

Yep, the GOP is acting like a baby throwing a tantrum. No doubt about it. Simply put, I think the reason why they look so ridiculous is...they're jealous! (If not the popularity, than certainly the power-- that's something they might admit) That green-eyed monster sure gets ugly, ya know?

There's no point in reasoning with a crying baby; it just needs to be put to bed.

they want him to continue to court their vote, for one thing. then they can have their cake and eat it by continuing to bash him even as he fails to move policy significantly leftward. and he probably only has until campaign season to do so 'cause it's unlikely the supermajorities in each house hold up after the 2010 elections

State Dept: Better to get thrown accolades than shoes

That is awesome. undo on previous page, post of the year.

If he hasn't stopped them then he continues to wage them. Way to get bogged down in semantics.

Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace prize is one of the more ridiculous things I have seen in a while.

Not really. It would be a disasterous decision to stop the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan in its tracks, whether or not he agrees with them. These were Bush's wars. I guess semantically he's still waging them but it's hilariously misleading. Like saying that these bailouts are on his administration as well.

and about current efforts in NW Pakistan? That's essentially a war in all but name.

I didn't say it wasn't. This started because I thought it was misleading to say that a reason why he doesn't deserve the prize is because he's 'waging' 3 wars.

I think he's current involvement in three crucibles of conflict of questionable need is a pretty good reason to argue why he should have got it. Whether waging is the right verb for Iraq and Afghanistan, I think it's not, it's certainly applicable in NW Pakistan.

And I think that's quite a bit more fair of a criticism.

Obviously he didn't do anything of note in the previous 11 months.

He ran a rock star campaign for president to replace a hated president who started wars peoople no longer wished to continue. And clearly it worked, both with the American voters and the international community as a whole. How that justifies a nobel peace prize...?

What people don't get is that not being Bush is an achievement. Everyone should get the Nobel Peace Prize for not being a Bush. It only means good things for the future of mankind.

He was nominated on his flowery speeches and promises to change the course of everything Bush did. I suspect that if the nominations were now as opposed to 2 weeks after he took office, and people saw how little he had changed things compared to what he said he was going to do, there wouldn't be the kind of "Obama is the savior!" feelings that existed back in February.




That's fine, but give me my damn prize so I can donate it to charity.

Excellent use of copy and paste.
Source--
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/10/09/...obel-prize-win/


I like that we are supposed to think less of him for not bowing down to the invisible man in the sky.