The Nobel Peace Prize Goes to...Obama?

[ElCee]

The Nobel Peace Prize Goes to...Obama? (also derailed to media bias)

Now, I don't personally dislike Obama(though I do disagree with the vast majority of his policies), but to put it bluntly, this makes me gag. I really don't know what else to say about this. This quote from this story says it best.

Two key White House aides were both convinced they were being punked when they heard the news, reported ABC News' George Stephanopoulos.
"It's not April 1, is it?" one said.

The Times Online also has a story on it. (As a side note, I love UK journalists because they seem to be much more competent than their American counterparts, at least from what I've seen).

He won it, in part, for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." My question is, exactly where has this suceeded?

Now, I think that the Prize is already a shadow of its former self; the prize that was given to Mother Teresa, the Red Cross, and Martin Luther King is now going to Al Gore, the IAEE(for helping to stop nuclear proliferation, except for those silly little countries like Iran), the IPCC, Kofi Annan , and Yasser Arafat.

So, tl;dr:Am I the only one who finds that downright silly?



EDIT: Dear God please don't turn this into a slapping contest about media bias.

 

[Misty]

You aren't. This is ridiculous. Everything he is working on is laden with pitfalls that could sink just about everything. This is especially true of the Israeli-Palestinian talks, which are probably going to break down within weeks.

 

[Robo-Ky]

I agree that it's too early for Obama to be receiving this - he has sparked more diplomacy than the Bush administration did, which in turn has boosted the world's image of the US, but other than that, he hasn't really contributed that much. If he does manage to make some serious contributions to the world during the remainder of his term, then maybe he would warrant at least a nomination, but for now, he doesn't deserve it yet. I do applaud him, though, for taking a more diplomatic approach to foreign policy than Bush did, as this has greatly improved the US' image across the world after Bush practically destroyed it with his militaristic approach. Kudos to you, Obama, for taking the stark opposite approach to foreign policy than your predecessor, but in all honesty, I don't think you deserve the prize just yet.

 

[Maci12]

I don't know if your the only one, but I find you completely wrong. Be careful about what you get from ABC as well. Two key White House aides? Which ones? You realize that Obama has a very mixed White House, so they could easily have gone to the most conseravative people in the White House and asked them their oppinion. That makes for a better story, no?

His efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between our peoples has succeeded widely in Europe. Throughout the Bush administration, Europe looked down on the U.S.: we started a completely bullshit war, our president did not make sound decisions, and Europe and Bush did not get along very well. Europe loves Obama, and therefore is able to work alongside our country much better than they were in the past 8 years.

Obama has also reached out to leaders of Middle Eastern countries, to gain a broader understanding of what is going on, and therefore can make smarter choices as we progress there. He has kept neutrality in many wildly controversial events, so that we did not further destroy any ties that were left with the world. You also have to look at it objectively, considering all the shit that was hitting the fan as he became president, he as accomplished an incredible amount as president in less than 10 months.

Also, just to play devil's advocate: Al Gore opened many Americans (and much of the world) up to how devastating the effects of Global Warming were through his documentary. That single documentary started, or gave movement to hundreds of Eco-Friendly movements across the world.

 

[Ancien Régime]

tl;dr obama deserves the nobel prize because europe likes him better than george bush despite the fact that obama has continued virtually ALL of bush's policies but just has nicer rhetoric

 

[Firestorm]

What the hell? He hasn't done a single thing to do with peace yet. "Better than Bush" doesn't mean anything. "I didn't invade a country under false pretenses" does not mean "Nobel Peace Prize".

 

[Tangerine]

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/10/first-year-grad-student-wins-nobel.html

Related, obviously.

EDIT: On a more serious note
http://thepage.time.com/remarks-obama-on-winning-nobel-prize/

This is a pretty good response by Obama. Kudos.

 

[Luduan]

The Nobel Peace Prize has been kind of irrelevant since 1994 anyway. (Arafat, Peres, and Rabin, seriously? How much farther removed from the previous year and the name of the award can you get.) Not only is it silly, but this decision is politically damaging and will probably serve only to further denigrate the discourse in the US (if that's possible).

 

[Roy]

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/10/first-year-grad-student-wins-nobel.html

Related, obviously.

EDIT: On a more serious note
http://thepage.time.com/remarks-obama-on-winning-nobel-prize/

This is a pretty good response by Obama. Kudos.

Wonderful, more empty promises. Obama should work towards completing his laundry list of assigned duties before venturing into new territory that will inevitably fail. Rhetoric is a wonderful way to win over uneducated Americans, no?

 

[ElCee]

I do have to say that, in Obama's defense, I didn't really expect him to go out and say "DO NOT WANT" to the Nobel Prize(though he could have waited until AFTER The Price is Right :P). Unlike the circus that was the lobbying of the IOC, at least he didn't campaign for it. This doesn't really tarnish my view of him; there are many, many legitimate, substantive reasons to "dislike" him rather than running with this. Also, I'll read tangerine's links when I get the chance later, I'm a bit pre-occupied right now.

Unfortunately, I can't really reply to the apparent writing off of everyone in this thread as ignorant(a tactic perhaps as old as politics itself) without derailing my own thread into a debate about the administration, either, and because we all know how that goes, people will have to draw their own conclusions.

 

[ferron]

I refuse to debate politics with the uninformed. This will be no different.

isn't it rather presumptuous to assume we are all uninformed?

also, i understand his efforts, but he has yet to accomplish anything with his efforts. even the g20 conference had little significance as of yet. even former VP gore had results (in the form of nations and corporations revising their waste policies) before he got his noble prize.

since you wish to defend intention rather than results, then what is the point of the prize?

if everything was based upon intention, then anyone that has had an international conference on peace deserves it. hell, hitler would deserve it since he thought he was doing what was right.

intention be damned, results matter much more.

 

[Deschain]

as one journalist put it, "it's fine to reward school children for effort, but you would expect more from International Heads of State".

or something to that effect. sums up my thoughts exactly.

what a farce.

 

[Firestorm]

EDIT: On a more serious note
http://thepage.time.com/remarks-obama-on-winning-nobel-prize/

This is a pretty good response by Obama. Kudos.

That puts it into context a little better. Don't think this will be the catalyst they hope it will be though.

 

[zarator]

I'm pretty mixed about this. As an outsider (European) observer, I'd say like others that Obama did quite little to deserve already the Nobel. But what I don't understand is the dislike you Americans show towards him about his policy. Our newspapers and TVs do little to inform us about this, so: could anyone be so kind to enlighten me about what Obama did in America's own business that you judge wrong? Has all this something to do with the Public Health Service thing?

 

[ThePatriot]

I agree with you guys completely. IMO he hasnt really done anything politically major while in office. And then he gets a peace prize, i just dont get it.

 

[Maci12]

Zarator I would suggest not getting your news here. They are all clearly incredibly bias, so I would suggest something like CNN (neutral), MSNBC (democratic but FAR more neutral than Fox News), or NPR (neutral news), to get informed because the people here would shape your oppinion with massive bias.

 

[ferron]

maci, some of us use the bbc and la sicilia.

don't assume all of us are american, or are limited in our access to information.

edit@ zarator- its not what he has done, its that its too early to judge his actions. though there are some that are already opposed to him due to some socialist policies, which honestly i support.

 

[Eraddd]

maci, some of us use the bbc and la sicilia.

don't assume all of us are american, or are limited in our access to information.

He's not. He never said that. He just said that we all hold our own opinions and biases, which personally, people shouldn't take offense to.

 

[ferron]

"I refuse to debate politics with the uninformed. This will be no different."

that was a post of by maci that was deleted, i had quoted it earlier.

 

[b0b3rt]

This is ridiculous, of course. I read this on slashdot and debated posting it here until I got here and saw it already up =P

@Maci12

Incase you didn't know, CNN stands for Communist News Network (not really, but the point is that they are incredibly liberal, along with every other TV news station, except for Fox which is conservative).

NPR isn't neutral, it's also a liberal radio station. I assume the reason you think so is because you're a liberal yourself and every other talk-show is conservative, therefore anything that agrees with you is neutral.

 

[akuchi]

bobert: what would you call the bbc..?

 

[b0b3rt]

I haven't read the BBC enough to form a definitive opinion, but from links in Slashdot articles I'd say it follows the British Government pretty closely; i.e. Authoritarian.

 

[Phizzlax]

Liberal leaning news stations tend to be a lot closer to neutral than Fox news though, which is laughably biased and intentionally inaccurate. I would never say that CNN is neutral, but if you want a general understanding about factual information regarding politics, CNN is leaps and bounds better than Fox (NPR even more so).

On topic, I agree that it's too early in Obama's presidency and he's done too little to deserve this award.

 

[b0b3rt]

No, they aren't much closer to neutral. The only reason so many people think so is because Fox stands out like a blood stain on a white t-shirt. People get so used to different news stations having similar views on everything that when they hear a differing opinion from Fox, they go "OMG CRAZY RIGHT-WING NUTS@!%!"

 

[Deck Knight]

Easily the most wonderful day in weeks.

Barack Obama is now immortalized as the torchbearer for Jimmy Carter, the worst president of the 20th Century, if not US history. On both domestic and foreign policy, Jimmy Carter was a disaster of the first order, and Obama will undoubtedly follow in his footsteps. The peanut farmer has evolved into the ruthless Chicago machine politician whose resume is his recognitions. For Obama, the Peace Prize serves as an enhancement of his resume, not its confirmation. How ironic it will be when a nuclear-armed Iran, with the help of a reconstituted Russia attacking a defenseless Eastern Europe, starts World War III under his watch.

You really need to check out the nomination paper.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

The majority of the world's population lives under tyranny, incidentally. The majority of the world does not turn their back when Moammar Gadhafi starts peddling Holocaust denial in the halls of the United Nations. The majority of the world gauges civility based on the amount of state control exercised over the people by rulers, not representatives.

Obama is the perfect candidate for this prize. Not only does he apologize for the US constantly, he sucks up to dictators, bows to kings, and has a breathless love of self over country that defies all expectations. He is the internationalist's internationalist. Obama's awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize is the ultimate victory of style over substance. Most ironically, Obama may be the first American candidate in years to bring prestige back to the prize, given he hasn't done anything negative to the world yet.

Sidenote: There are now three consecutive US democratic administrations with high-level officials that have received Nobel Peace Prizes. Carter for buddying up with terrorist Yassir Arafat [how is that Middle East peace thing going?], Gore for fearmongering global doom, and now Obama for hope-a-doping the entire world.

Come on guys, Dukakis 2012. I want the Peace Prize awarded to the tank driver himself.