Teddy, Woody and Barack

And so President Barack Obama joins Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson as the the third sitting President to win a Nobel Peace Prize. But there should end the comparison. Both Roosevelt and Wilson won their Prizes on the basis of achievements; Obama seems to have won his on promises articulated, eloquently in the eyes of some, naively in the view of others.

Theodore Roosevelt won his in 1906 for his role in ending the Russo-Japanese War though in the peace treaty signed at Portsmouth, New Hampshire were sown the seeds of a greater war in the Pacific. And Woodrow Wilson won his in 1919 for his role in shaping a post-war world at Versailles even if his vision was not fully accepted both at home and abroad. Furthermore the haphazard Wilsonian world created artificial states while suppressing the liberties and aspirations of peoples the world over. Both of these are a bitter Wilsonian legacy and they continue to plague the international system and dampen the hopes of peace.

The Nobel Committee in Oslo chose Obama for more what, or perhaps more accurately who, he is not than for what he has achieved which is precious little as yet. "Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics," the Committee wrote. "Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play." Can as in might, as in the conditional. Climate is also an odd choice of words given the Administration's confusing, and I am being kind by only calling it confusing, approach to the Kyoto Protocol.

More from the New York Times:

Interviewed later in the Nobel Committee's wood-paneled meeting room, surrounded by photographs of past winners, Mr. Jagland brushed aside concerns expressed by some critics that Mr. Obama remains untested.

"The question we have to ask is who has done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world," Mr. Jagland said. "And who has done more than Barack Obama?"

He compared the selection of Mr. Obama with the award in 1971 to the then West German Chancellor Willy Brandt for his "Ostpolitik" policy of reconciliation with communist eastern Europe.

"Brandt hadn't achieved much when he got the prize, but a process had started that ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall," Mr. Jagland said. "We have to get the world on the right track again," he said. Without referring specifically to the Bush era, he continued: "Look at the level of confrontation we had just a few years ago. Now we get a man who is not only willing but probably able to open dialogue and strengthen international institutions."

I am not sure how a man who has committed 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan and who now faces a decision of doubling up and who has ordered the escalation of aerial war in Pakistan that has claimed more innocent civilian lives than actual targets qualifies as one who has enhanced peace even if I appreciate the President's words and efforts on nuclear disarmament as well as his role in bringing the US back into the community of nations. How does Obama's decision to expand American militarism into Colombia qualify him as a man of peace? How does Obama's quest to find a home for Africom qualify him as a man of peace? American militarism is alive and well in the age of Obama and the Nobel Peace Committee has ignored the dark side of Obama, that he represents a continuation of the American Empire, not a break from it.

I generally concur with Glenn Greenwald of Salon who writes:

Through no fault of his own, Obama presides over a massive war-making state that spends on its military close to what the rest of the world spends combined. The U.S. accounts for almost 70% of worldwide arms sales. We're currently occupying and waging wars in two separate Muslim countries and making clear we reserve the "right" to attack a third. Someone who made meaningful changes to those realities would truly be a man of peace. It's unreasonable to expect that Obama would magically transform all of this in nine months, and he certainly hasn't. Instead, he presides over it and is continuing much of it.  One can reasonably debate how much blame he merits for all of that, but there are simply no meaningful "peace" accomplishment in his record -- at least not yet -- and there's plenty of the opposite. That's what makes this Prize so painfully and self-evidently ludicrous.

I have a hard time rewarding rhetoric even if eloquent and inspirational. This is a Prize wholly undeserved as yet that cheapens the efforts of others such as Dr. Sima Simar, Chairperson of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) who established the Shuhada Organization which focuses on health care for Afghan women, or of Dr. Denis Mukwege who has been treating women and girls who have been victims of sexual violence in the DR Congo for ten years now, or even former President Bill Clinton, perhaps atoning for past sins of deed and omission, who with his Clinton Global Initiative is actually changing lives at home and abroad. These are accomplishments worth noting.

Here is the full press release from the Nobel Committee:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

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."

I don't disagree that now is the time to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges but I have no reason to believe based on the empirical evidence so far that it is wishful thinking at best or empty rhetoric at worst. I await achievements for promises we have always had aplenty. And I am reasonably confident that come 2017, President Obama will pass the torch to another, hopefully more Progressive, Democrat having accomplished much both at home and abroad. This is a Prize a decade too soon.

Tags: nobel peace prize, US Presidential History (all tags)



Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

Good Postings ...

Ironically I think the award would force is hand in terms of sending in the 40000 troops . He would probably have to send those troops now...

by lori 2009-10-09 04:26PM | 0 recs
uh, wilson plainly won for his speeches

The man ran on a peace platform and promptly joined the war he ran against.

by John DE 2009-10-09 04:35PM | 0 recs
Cutting and running for real

That would be a great idea.... if you're a Republican looking for great victories in 2012.

Obama believes in peace, but this false progressive meme that he must abandon a war he did not start regardless of the consequences* is shear nonsense.

We're leaving. That's always been the attitude from the White House.

But we're going to do it carefully, okay?

* For the Afghan people, the United States, the American soldiers, and the Democrats.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-09 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Cutting and running for real

Thats not good enough for some on the left. They want the war to be over, damn the consequences. I understand their sentiment. I have family who have served in both warzones and I worry about them everytime they go (two and three times respectively.) I also understand their reasons philosophically...but I know that the reality is we cannot just up and leave. I wish they would figure that out too.

by JDF 2009-10-09 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Cutting and running for real

I am not sure where I stand on the wars right now, but I understand the fear from as someone semi literate of history. Namely, that these excuses you think justify our staying played out in other wars- Vietnam and Korea. We have to stay because we can not just leave. At some point- when does it become just an excuse? What if nothing ever improves over there- should we stay regardless ? These are serious questions that trying to gloss all disagreement as purists does not address.

by bruh3 2009-10-09 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Cutting and running for real

Delaing with a war like Afghanistan is like dealing with raising a child...there are no hard or fast rules that fit every situation.  You have to feel it out while you are in the middle of it, using a lot of rather elastic parameters.

By any real measure, the war in Afghanistan is not done.  What will determine when it is done?  Well, I trust the current admin to judge that FAR better than the last one.

Afghanistan, right now, is really just starting as a real effort.  I HATE saying that.  All the sacrifice of the previous 7 years, or so, was pretty much just wasted by the past admin...if there is any hate directed at them by me, it is because of their abuse of the military for personal/political/corporate gain in THIS matter.  Those F-ers.  

So now we have an Admin that REALLY wants to do what should have been done 8 years ago, dealing with this properly.  Now is the time to give them the same 8 years the last admin got, then compare.  

As a non-war veteran and with many I know/love in service, I think it is the CORRECT thing to do.  This will take a lot of faith and moral courage to do, and we need to do it to do good by the Afghan people...they cannot deal with this by themselves right now.  And we need to discuss,as a nation, just when they are in a position, from our point of view, to be left to deal with their own problems.

Iraq is at that point, but not A-stan yet.

by Hammer1001 2009-10-10 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Cutting and running for real

Sorry that should be posted one above to other poster.

by bruh3 2009-10-09 07:54PM | 0 recs
Re: uh, wilson plainly won for his speeches

He actually ran specifically on escalating the Afghan war.  There really was no way you could mistake that.

by Jess81 2009-10-10 03:05AM | 0 recs
regarding "more constructive role"

of U.S. on climate, here's a good rebuttal by Nick Berning.

by desmoinesdem 2009-10-09 04:47PM | 0 recs
This is an outrage.

Frontpaged on a blog that purports to be about Democrats?


Republican trash.

by NeciVelez 2009-10-09 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re: This is an outrage.

I agree. Barack Obama has made drastic changes in US foreign policy and the world is recognizing what his own country will not. Today is a great day for the USA.

by Lolis 2009-10-09 05:16PM | 0 recs
Offering hope to billions

Only to the hopeless does that count for nothing.

In one year, the US jumped from the 7th to most admired nation.

They'll never get it.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-09 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: This is an outrage.

I have to agree with you? I would guess that most of the responses
have reflected what you might find on Republican sites.

Maybe Mydd has reinvented itself and is betting on Republicans?

by Politicalslave 2009-10-09 05:35PM | 0 recs
Manufactured controversy

Welcome to the cash from clickers program.  MyDD seems to have taken a page from the Faux news playbook on how to generate revenue from manufactured controversy.  If you make shit up, people will come to fight about it.

Reasoned, civil discourse and intellectual debate just don't pay the bills.

by NavyBlueWife 2009-10-09 06:22PM | 0 recs
Please elaborate

What do you mean by choosing him for "who" (or "what") he is?

"...The Nobel Committee in Oslo chose Obama for more what, or perhaps more accurately who, he is not than for what he has achieved which is precious little as yet..."
(emphasis added).

I am not saying this award, which the President did not seek, is justified. I have great misgivings over the granting of awards based more on promises than lasting performance.

But to say Obama has achieved "precious little" is just a tad obtuse. In the first 8+ months:

  • Ordered the closing of Guantanamo Bay by January 2010
  • Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, overruling the SUpreme Court.
  • Issued a directive to the military to draft plans for withdrawing troops from Iraq
  • Signed the reauthorization of SCHIP to cover an additional 4 million children currently uninsured.
  • Reversed George W. Bush's ban on federal funding to foreign establishments that allow abortions.
  • Reduced the secrecy given to presidential records and changed procedures to promote disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
  • Repealed a Bush-era policy that prevented federal tax dollars from being used to fund research on new lines of embryonic stem cells.
  • Nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court
  • Announced new regulations on power plants, factories and oil refineries in an attempt to limit greenhouse gas emissions and to curb global warming.
  • Signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, a $787 billion economic stimulus package aimed at helping the economy recover from the deepening worldwide recession.
  • Renewed loans for General Motors and Chrysler Corporation.
  • Announced a new era in foreign relations with Russia and Europe.

It's kind of all there on Wikipedia.

I think the real question is: will Barack Obama ever truly be worthy of his achievements? Or will he always be accused of earning them for (as you say) "who/what he is".

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-09 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Please elaborate

The vast majority of what you just listed obviously has nothing to do with the Nobel Peace Prize.

by Steve M 2009-10-09 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Please elaborate

agreed none of that has anything to do with the nobel peace prize. And let me get this straight, people here are criticizing Charles Lemos for using republican talking points? Are you all so blinded by the persona that is President Obama that you cant see how absurd it was to award a nobel peace prize to the man?

by BuckeyeBlogger 2009-10-09 05:53PM | 0 recs
Nobody ever said it did

The Nobel committee gave their reasons.

Agree with them or disagree with them, but it has nothing to do with Presdient Obama.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-09 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Please elaborate

"Are you all so blinded by the persona that is President Obama that you cant see how absurd it was to award a nobel peace prize to the man?"

I am not sure if the prize was absurd on the level of may be pushing President Obama in a certain direction. I find that argument while not perfect at least persuasive or more so than trying to list non existent accomplishments.

But, I will agree that there are quite a few people who are blinded by President Obama's persona. This is just the latest example.

by bruh3 2009-10-09 07:57PM | 0 recs
"Obtuse. Is it deliberate?"

It doesn't take much paying attention to realize that Barack Obama has many, many accomplishments from his first 8 months in office.

And health care reform will be another come the end of the year. The first President to reform health care since, what, Truman?

Do they deserve a Nobel Prize? I have already commented as such. The Nobel Committee already gave their justifications.

What burns you up so much about people liking Obama? Was Hill your girl in the primary and you're still bitter over all this? You need to let it go.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-09 09:29PM | 0 recs
Re: "Obtuse. Is it deliberate?"

No actually I was an Edwards supporter ( ugh....), but my pooitn simpyl is awarding the President the nobel withotu havign accomplished something to be worthy of it is absurd. I dotn blame him, but hes got to be feeling a bit silly abotu it at the moment.

by BuckeyeBlogger 2009-10-10 05:49AM | 0 recs

I think the Administration was mortified. The only alternative would be to turn it down, which would be a slap in the face and an insult to the Nobel committee. He didn't ask for this award. And I think he handled the embarrassment as eloquently as possible.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-10 09:14AM | 0 recs
Yes, I know

The list was to challenge the point the right wing talking point that President Obama has accomplished precious little since taking office 8+ months ago.

According to the Nobel Prize committee, the award was given for the dramatic change in US attitude, led by President Obama, towards negotiations, multilateralism, and peace talks, and away from unilateralism and military might.

Do I agree with their decision, no. I stated that above. Not only is it bafoonish of them, it presents our President with a very difficult situation.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-09 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Please elaborate

I suspect that is the purview of the Nobel body, not you.

Wouldn't you agree?

by lojasmo 2009-10-09 08:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Please elaborate

No, stuff like the Sotomayor nomination has nothing to do with the Nobel Peace Prize, period.  This is not difficult to understand.

by Steve M 2009-10-09 08:37PM | 0 recs
Reading. It's fundamental.

The Nobel Committee gave their justifications.

Once again, the rather lengthy list provided challenges the original diarists absurd notion (and Red State talking point) that Obama "hasn't accomplished anything (because he hasn't given me a unicorn)"

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-09 09:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Reading. It's fundamental.

"Reading" my actual comment would have helped you avoid this non sequitur.

by Steve M 2009-10-09 10:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

The committee awarded the 1984 prize to the Reverend Desmond Tutu for his efforts eliminating apartheid. The formal apartheid regime lasted another ten years. The award gave Tutu much more authority for his efforts, signaled to the South African government that the world's patience had run out, and made that government's efforts to keep the system in place much harder. It is a real open question whether the system would have crashed on anything like that time line if the award had gone elsewhere. Further, Tutu led the efforts for the Truth and Reconciliation process, which has helped the post-apartheid nation build something new together.

That decision was clearly meant not just to award past accomplishment, but to provide impetus for further movement toward peace. In the same way, today's award can be seen as the committee's signal that the Western world has repudiated Bush policies and theories and is supporting Obama's real efforts to achieve non-proliferation, climate change reduction and outreach to the Islamic world.

Sometimes people forget that the Peace Prize is not like a career achievement Oscar, but is a political action on the part of the committee.

by anoregonreader 2009-10-09 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

Tutu had been involved in the struggle for years, not days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Tut u

Obama was nominated days after becoming PResident.

by bruh3 2009-10-09 08:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

Along with 206 other people. The decision to award him the prize was only made within the last day.

by jsfox 2009-10-09 08:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

The decision to include him was in the first few days of his being President. Tutu had been addressing Apartheid for years when he was nominated. This is one of those conversations where either you get this goes against common sense or you don't. As I said, I can buy the argument it was for the purpose of the potential that Pres Obama represents, but that's about the only credible argument. The absurd one's many made by the normal suspects are just that- absurd. I have no horse in this race. At the begin of the day, I just thought it was absurd. But then listening to some of the arguments- the only one that was at all convincing as a good reason to give it to him was that he has the potential for peace. Certainly not this parsing you are now trying to do with me.

by bruh3 2009-10-09 09:16PM | 0 recs
Read the quote in my signiature

Mahatma Gandhi never was even nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-09 09:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Read the quote in my signiature

Something I have never understood not your quote, but why Ghandi has never received the Nobel.

by jsfox 2009-10-10 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

It is only absurd because you are only able to see this from an American-centric position. Changing from a pre-emptive, aggressive war stance to a diplomatic one is a sea change in the world at large.

China, Russia, Iran, etc. etc can no longer wage pre-emptive wars with us as the excuse. That is huge for peace.

Quit looking at this from a perspective of what he has done for us.

by alectimmerman 2009-10-10 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

I seeing it from the perspective of action which has nothing to do with American or not. Either he has acted or not.

by bruh3 2009-10-10 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

So had Barack Obama.

by lojasmo 2009-10-09 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

Wow!. Seriously, there are no words.

by bruh3 2009-10-09 09:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

Obama has been working on nonproliferation activities during his entire tenure in the senate.

Those are some words.

http://lugar.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=27 8019&

And that's a link.

by lojasmo 2009-10-11 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

Obama has been involved in nuclear non-proliferation for years, just because you don't know what Obama's record is, doesn't mean he doesn't have one.

by Lolis 2009-10-10 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

Lord, you people are nuts. LOL,

by bruh3 2009-10-10 03:28PM | 0 recs
by lojasmo 2009-10-11 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

Do you get how huge it is for the most powerful nation on earth to change from a policy of pre-emptive wars of aggression to diplomacy?

Seriously. For eight years the hugest ship in the land was mauling over any vessel in sight. He changed the direction of the ship.

I wouldn't have given him the prize either, but that is because I have an American-centric view, like all the rest of you.

MYDD is a great place, but many of the posters need to get over Hillary's loss. It's been over for awhile.

by alectimmerman 2009-10-09 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

We are still engaged in the war of pre exemption.

by bruh3 2009-10-09 08:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

WTF is pre exemption?

by lojasmo 2009-10-09 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

That's when you don't do something before you don't do it.  It's bruh logic, don't bother trying to crack the code.

by fogiv 2009-10-09 08:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

Thanks for the entertainment. Not one of you could dispute the actual substance of what I was saying so you leaped on a typo.

You clearly knew what I meant.  But like the immature children you are- this is what you banter about. "He said the wrong word. He said the wrong word. Ha ha ha. He said the wrong word."

We got it. I said the wrong word.

Now, how am I wrong about the two wars we are still prosecuting or their genesis.

I do not blame President Obama for the mess we are in regarding those wars. He did not start them.

But claiming that he deserves the peace prize while as President escalating one of the wars is Orwellian- Peace through War.

I trust you know what that word means or will you simply snicker like little high school girls with more 'gotchas"? I am going to guess more immaturity.

by bruh3 2009-10-09 11:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

Actually bruh, whether you recognize it or not, a great many of your comments border or swerve wildly into incomprehension.  Had you swapped preemption for pre-exemption, your statement would still have no bearing on the comment you responded to.  That's the 'bruh logic' to which I refer.

For the entertainment:  you're welcome.

by fogiv 2009-10-10 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

LOL. Yes, it is because of me that you spend 3 posts mentioning ONLY typo, but it was not that typo -  it was the entire post. You people re pathetic.

Yes, my statement that we are prosecuting two wars has no meaning at all. Like I said, Orwellian. I suppose Orwell also has no meaning to you and is incomprehensible.

by bruh3 2009-10-10 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

Ooh.  So we're playing "gocha" now, eh?  poor Bruh.

Perhaps if you had ANYTHING to say that hasn't been said by you at least one thousand times before, the conversation wouldn't be forced to veer into the absolutely absurd.

by lojasmo 2009-10-11 07:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

I actually thought he meant pre-exemption.  I don't think I'm the only one, given the fact that exemption is a word, and 'x' is nowhere near any of the letters in preemption.

Just saying.

by Jess81 2009-10-10 03:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

This is really funny. Yet another "serious person" commenting on typo. Question: since I was responding to someone else, and I mentioned war- it was impossible for you geniuses to figure it out from that? Really? I doubt it. More likely this is about you not liking me and your displays of immaturity.

by bruh3 2009-10-10 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

I actually wasn't talking to you.

by Jess81 2009-10-11 01:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

Your attempts to obfuscate are so transparent, I figured it was a gimme.  I love low hanging fruit.

by lojasmo 2009-10-11 07:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

I've learned more about the inate qualitiy of people by simply watching their reaction to today's surprise. The ones who smiled are fine. The ones who grimaced can kiss my rosy red ass.

by QTG 2009-10-10 06:47AM | 0 recs

We are all still engaged in the war of giving someone the first chance or offer to purchase land from us?


Pre-exemption Law (1841)

Definition: U.S. law allowing settlers the first chance to purchase land that they had already occupied prior to its official sale.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-09 09:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

Main Entry: my·o·pia
Pronunciation: mī-ˈō-pē-ə\
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Greek myōpia, from myōp-, myōps
Date: circa 1752

1 : a condition in which the visual images come to a focus in front of the retina of the eye resulting especially in defective vision of distant objects

2 : a lack of foresight or discernment : a narrow view of something

by fogiv 2009-10-09 08:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack


Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs

by bruh3 2009-10-09 08:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

Main Entry: im·be·cile
Pronunciation: ˈim-bə-səl, -ˌsil\
Function: noun
Etymology: French imbécile, noun, from adjective, weak, weak-minded, from Latin imbecillus
Date: 1802

1 usually offensive : a person affected with moderate mental retardation

2 : fool, idiot

by fogiv 2009-10-09 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

You continue to be a good ironic character. Thanks.

by bruh3 2009-10-09 09:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

Wow, a third Eff You Obama thread on the FP of myDD.  I guess you'd call that a trifecta.

Goes to show that sour grapes make good whine.

by lojasmo 2009-10-09 08:34PM | 0 recs
In fairness

Wilson's was also too soon as his attempts at peace proved to be an epic fail.

But his ideas eventually came to fruition after the Second World War.

If we were living in the 1920's, 1930's and 1940's, I think many people would wonder why Wilson got a Nobel Peace Prize. I'm reasonably sure that while we're scratching our heads now, it'll come full circle in a few years.

Ironically, I'm currently in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, where Teddy's Nobel Peace Prize isn't lost among the locals.

by DTOzone 2009-10-09 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

Well, Wilson drafted my grandfather into the U.S. Army to go fight in WWI.  And Roosevelt was a warmonger who took over part of Colombia to set up a U.S. colony and build the Panama Canal.

Obama stopped the U.S. Government's policy of snatching people and torturing them.

It's really sad that this is what became of our country.  But stopping the torture really IS worth a Nobel Prize.

by kaleidescope 2009-10-09 08:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

THe politics of low expectations in a nutshell. Well, he's not bush, so that's much better.

by bruh3 2009-10-09 09:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

There may be many other qualified candidates who have accomplished more than Obama, but I think the committee recognizes the impact that his historic Presidency has made - he is a symbol of hope; he has managed to reverse 8 horrific years of fear, hate, attack, isolation and non-diplomacy and he (and the US) are being rewarded for this. Obama's speeches are eloquent and uplifting - his speech in Cairo directed to muslim youth was inspiring. His rallies have had record attendance. By receiving the NPP, he is elevated on the world stage and this is a positive thing for the U.S. While the Repugs are mired in their hateful, fear tactics of tea parties and death panels, the NPP committee is saying to Obama and America "don't lose sight" of where you are going and what you can accomplish in the future.  I believe the committee rightly chose Obama as he has had the most positive worldwide impact in a relatively short time.

by nikkid 2009-10-09 10:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

That's not quite true that Obama did not get it from achievements. Both Woodrow and teddy were from established wealthy families. Obama was a guy who pulled himself up from modest means to become the first minority President of a developed country. That's seminal not matter which way you look at it.

Had this prize been bestowed in the aftermath of the inauguration or in the honeymoon that followed it would not have been criticized.

by vecky 2009-10-09 10:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

I find the argument that giving Obama the award now is a way of building momentum to be pretty persuasive.  Both the Nobel committee and the Nobel recepient are putting it in these terms; nobody is confusing this for a lifetime achievement award, except for pockets here.  And there.

Simply put, giving Barack Obama the award for the reasons they gave sends a stronger signal and will have a strongest impact than if the award were given to anyone else I can think of.  It's a big impetus to increased diplomacy, mutual understanding and all the rest of it.  

Which is what it should be about I thought?  Treating this like it's the Oscars and how could you not give it to Goodfellas is just stupid.

by Jess81 2009-10-10 03:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

Goodfellas does deserve it though.

by fogiv 2009-10-10 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Teddy, Woody and Barack

I think he also should have won Best Director for Last Temptation.

by Jess81 2009-10-11 02:01AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads