Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama, the Nobel Prize and What It All Means

The stunning choice of President Obama as the winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize -- announced early this morning in Oslo -- comes at a critical juncture both domestically and internationally for his administration and has the potential to give him a political boost in each arena moving forward.

Just one week ago, Obama's image took a blow -- how big or small depends largely on where you stand on the partisan spectrum -- when, just hours after he traveled to Copenhagen to personally make the case for Chicago to host the 2016 Olympics, his hometown was the first city eliminated in the International Olympic Committee's vote.

The peace prize should quickly erase the memory of that embarrassment for Obama and restore his image as a respected player on the world stage in the eyes of the international community.

(In truth, Obama's numbers have never seriously lagged in foreign countries; a September "Transatlantic Trends" poll sponsored by the German Marshall fund found that 77 percent of the members of the European Union and Turkey supported the president's handling of international affairs.)

On the domestic front, Obama's new image as a Nobel Peace Prize winner will most directly affect the ongoing debate over troop levels in Afghanistan.

The issue has, to date, badly divided Obama's own party as well as the American public. In a Pew poll conducted late last month, 50 percent favored keeping U.S. troops in the country while 43 percent voiced support for removing all troops. Obama has not made any formal decision on next steps in the country but reports suggest that he will not reduce the number of U.S. troops, a decision that will not please many in the liberal wing of his party.

Winning the Nobel Prize will allow Obama to go to his divided Democratic caucus and make the case far more forcefully that the time is now to stay united behind him on Afghanistan. It isn't a silver bullet solution as many liberal members have strongly held beliefs on the issue that aren't likely to change simply because Obama is a Nobel Prize winner, but for many who are on the fence, the prize may be just the thing that pushes them onto Obama's side.

In terms of health care, the other major legislative fight roiling Congress at the moment, the impact (if any) is far less clear. While winning such a prestigious prize will surely create a bit of momentum for Obama within the halls of Congress, it's hard to see this as a game-changer in a legislative fight that has been going on for so many months and where the battle lines are so clearly drawn.

The political downside of winning the prize? Expect some Republicans -- and, particularly, conservative talk show hosts on television and radio -- to focus on the idea that Obama is such a beloved figure on the world stage because he has essentially capitulated to the demands of the international community.

Remember that when President Obama was greeted with huge crowds and limitless adoration as he traveled through Europe as a candidate, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was able to turn his international popularity against him, raising questions about whether Obama was ready to stand up for America's interests. Although this event lacks the same campaign context, the same arguments will likely be made by some within the GOP.

"His winning the Nobel Peace Prize is very bad for Obama politically," said Republican consultant Curt Anderson. "It will completely reinforce the notion that he is all flash and no substance, all style, and more popular in Europe than in America."

The Democratic National Committee is pushing back -- hard -- against attacks from Republicans about the prize. "The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists -- the Taliban and Hamas this morning -- in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize," said DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse.

In politics, it is often the unexpected event that packs the most punch. And, the president winning the Nobel Peace Prize after just nine months in office qualifies as among the more unexpected turns of events in recent political history. It's clear that the honor should strengthen Obama's hand within his own party in the short-term but how long that newfound political capital lasts -- and whether it has any impact on his outreach to Republicans -- remains to be seen.

Have ideas of your own on what the Nobel Prize means for Obama's political prospects? The comments section awaits.

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 9, 2009; 8:47 AM ET
Categories:  White House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Morning Fix: Of Superdelegates and Health Care
Next: The Live Fix: Obama and the Nobel, Wii vs Xbox, and Bob Schneider

Comments

To the line!

Count Name
89 GoldAndTanzanite
70 JakeD
65 emmet1
27 broadwayjoe
27 shrink2
21 snowbama
18 drindl
15 retiredzoomie
14 nodebris
6 Billw3
6 ponky
5 koolkat_1960
4 4 posters
3 6 posters
2 16 posters
1 110 posters

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 13, 2009 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2009 11:29 AM | Report abuse

75% out of 16,065 Total Votes: NO!

Posted by: JakeD | October 12, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize win isn't just being criticized by the political community -- now, Olympic champ-turned-reality-sell-out Bruce Jenner is weighing in ... claiming Obama did "absolutely nothing" to deserve the award.

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/#ixzz0Tkjeo0Ny

Posted by: JakeD | October 12, 2009 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Surely there's nothing political in recognizing the greatness of the most transformative figure in American history and in singing his praise.

"Mmm, mmm, mmm. Barack Hussein Obama. Mmm, mmm, mmm. Barack Hussein Obama."

Got to admit it's catchy. I find myself humming it all day long.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 12, 2009 2:56 PM | Report abuse

In addition to the Nobel Peace Prize, don't forget that group of 1st graders forced to sing praises to The One. The video circulating on YouTube was (at least) the second time when Charisse Carney-Nunes, who wrote the children's book "I Am Barack Obama," visited the school and schoo [SIC] children sang the song again, school officials said.

"There was no intention to make any political statement or promote a political agenda at all," Superintendent Christopher Manno said in the statement.

[of course not]

Posted by: JakeD | October 12, 2009 2:36 PM | Report abuse

He announced on his first day that he was closing Gitmo. LOL

Posted by: emmet1 | October 12, 2009 2:34 PM | Report abuse

No problem -- I will see you around hopefully -- just take comfort in knowing that not a single person (Barack Obama included) could point to ANYTHING that he did in his first 12 days as President to actually accomplish any of what the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for, i.e. create a brand new climate in international politics, yaddam yadda yadda.

Posted by: JakeD | October 12, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, Jake. I don't know how I missed it. I guess it's time to turn out the lights on this thread. Keep fighting the good fight!

Posted by: emmet1 | October 12, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuse

emmet1:

I posted that TWO HOURS ago, try to catch up please ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 12, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse

This just in:

Obama Fails to Win Nobel Prize in Economics
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-fails-to-win-nobel-prize-in-economics-2009-10-12

Whatever credibility the Nobel Committee gained with their thrilling award of the Peace Prize, they have now squandered with this outrageous snub. After all, Obama has overturned everything we once knew about economics.

Under Obama's tutelage, we have learned that the path to prosperity is to borrow trillions of dollars overseas and to spend it on useless pork and new entitlement programs. We've also learned that there appears to be a lag before the wonderful benefits kick in.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 12, 2009 1:01 PM | Report abuse

It was a joke, TAndG. I know Obama is no longer a Muslim. I also know he won't be picked as the next Pope. Secretary General of the UN, maybe, but not Pope.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 12, 2009 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | October 12, 2009 11:14 AM | Report abuse

However, I feel safe in predicting that the next Pope will be our lord and savior Barack Hussein Obama. This will be historic, as there has never been a Muslim Pope.

==

I apologize to the rest of the blog for making the prolonged mistake of taking this jerk seriously

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 12, 2009 3:05 AM | Report abuse

The Pope announced five new saints today, including one from ... Hawaii.

Alas, it was not our President but some lowly priest who cared for lepers. Unlike the Nobel Peace committee, this Pope just doesn't get it.

However, I feel safe in predicting that the next Pope will be our lord and savior Barack Hussein Obama. This will be historic, as there has never been a Muslim Pope.

I don't think he'll be the next Dalai Lama, though.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 12, 2009 2:38 AM | Report abuse

GAndT, Saddam's connection to terrorism and his believed WMD made him seem very dangerous to most Americans and to our coalition partners.

Whether in hindsight the invasion was a smart move is certainly open to debate. The loss of life and horrible injuries, the economic costs, and the political costs both at home and abroad are big negatives. The removal of Saddam and the defeat of AQ in the heart of its declared new Caliphate are big pluses.

The outcome in Afghanistan and whether Iraq remains peaceful are still hanging in the balance. We'll have a better perspective in a decade or so about the Iraq war. If the terrorists prevail and America declines, we'll know it wasn't worth it. Our present leadership makes me very fearful.

But, hey! The guy won the Peace Prize. What could go wrong?

Posted by: emmet1 | October 12, 2009 1:58 AM | Report abuse

Saddam was an intolerable threat to the civilized world and had given us ample casus belli.

==

Saddam was a threat to government officials in his own country. Average people barely even thought about him. The streets were safe, the electricity stayed on, Islamic radicalism was abaolutely repressed. Saddam was zero threat to his neighbors, having no significant weapons.

The justifications you enumerate are little crap, orders of magnitude less than justification for going to war.

You make it sound as though the USA is so thin-skinned and insecure that we need to retort small slights with vast overkill, even if it destroys us.

As for the oil, google up how many American oil companies have contracts in Iraq (a) before invasion and (b) now. Not a factor? Riiiight. Operation Iraqi Liberation.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 12, 2009 1:24 AM | Report abuse

emmet1:

Don't hold your breath waiting for him to ever provide evidence that we gave Iraq WMD or anything else he spouts.

Posted by: JakeD | October 12, 2009 1:05 AM | Report abuse

GAndT, uhhh, Saddam started the Gulf War. An international coalition led by the U.S. finished it. Of course, that made him hate us and made him DANGEROUS. Excuse my shouting, but you don't seem to hear well.

Yes, I supported the invasion of Iraq, like virtually all Republicans and about half of Congressional Democrats. It was certainly justified given our knowledge at the time. Saddam was an intolerable threat to the civilized world and had given us ample casus belli. While the invasion was a brilliant success, the occupation was horribly bungled until Petraeus and his COIN doctrine finally brought victory and peace. Will peace hold? Stay tuned.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 12, 2009 1:03 AM | Report abuse

I see you're in good company, emmet

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 12, 2009 12:56 AM | Report abuse

More "only" hurt feelings (tell that to his family and friends):

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12862

Posted by: JakeD | October 12, 2009 12:50 AM | Report abuse

emmet1:

How far do you think you can get with someone who honestly believes the United States only takes on countries who are defenseless (from England in 1776 to Japan / Italy / Germany in 1945)?

Posted by: JakeD
--------------
I'm sure GAndT will explain how we were the aggressor against those peaceful countries and call us idiots for not knowing it.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 12, 2009 12:49 AM | Report abuse

But, if you recall, Saddam celebrated the attacks and called for more.

==

Uhhh, given Gulf War I what kind of idiot would expect him to do anything else?

And don't expect me to shed to many tears over our "ally" Israel. I'm one of those people who thinks we should cut them off without a cent and withdraw our embassy until they're out of the West Bank and the settler movement is illegal under their law.

Can only wonder why you bring up the bonuses to dead bombers' families. Of what possible significance is that?

More hurt feelings?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 12, 2009 12:30 AM | Report abuse

You think you can just toss off unsupported assertions and call someone names and still be taken seriously.

==

You think you can still support the Iraq invasion and not be regarded as a damned fool.

Trotting out a pile of discredited and disproven crap and topping them off with "even Democrats believed it" just compounds the offense.

And just at what great company you're in ....

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 12, 2009 12:17 AM | Report abuse

emmet1:

How far do you think you can get with someone who honestly believes the United States only takes on countries who are defenseless (from England in 1776 to Japan / Italy / Germany in 1945)?

Posted by: JakeD | October 12, 2009 12:10 AM | Report abuse

GAndT, before you call me names, you should get your facts right.

We tilted toward Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war mainly because we were worried Iran would win and then get control of majority Shia Iraq. We sought a long stalemate with neither side victorious (what we should have done on the eastern front in WWII). Of course, we did NOT give Saddam mustard gas or any other chemical or biological weapons. Since I can't prove a negative, I'll await your evidence that we gave them such.

Terrorist-supporting states are not picky. Saddam supported and harbored notorious international terrorists like Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas. Both had U.S. and Israeli blood on their hands. Saddam also paid bonuses to the families of Palestinian terrorists who murdered Israeli and American civilians in Israel.

Today Shia Iran is providing deadly EFPs to the Sunni Taliban/AQ in Afghanistan. North Korea will also apparently sell anything to anyone with evil intentions. The bad guys have common enemies and collaborate when it's in their interests. So you're silly if you think Saddam was too fastidious to deal with religious fanatics. In fact, in his last years Saddam tried to re-brand himself as the defender of Islam.

As to AQ, the 9/11 commission found that there had been several meetings between AQ and Iraqi agents, though there was no evidence of Iraqi knowledge or participation in the 9/11 attacks. But, if you recall, Saddam celebrated the attacks and called for more.


You think you can just toss off unsupported assertions and call someone names and still be taken seriously. You must be spending too much time on Daily Kos or Huffington Post. In the grown-up world, such behavior is considered embarrassingly immature. But I guess standards are changing. Al Franken is now a U.S. senator.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 11, 2009 11:39 PM | Report abuse

Again, only a leftist atheist equates Iranians holding 53 Americans hostage for 444 days as "hurt feelings". Bombing Pearl Harbor or crashing jets into WTC = aggressive diplomatic communications.

Posted by: JakeD | October 11, 2009 11:35 PM | Report abuse

We knew Saddam had produced chemical and biological weapons (which he'd actually used against the Kurds)

==

He got them from us, back when he was the enemy of Iran after Iran hurt our feelings.

If you believe Saddam would be in cahoots with AQ then you know nothing about either and must be one of those who refers to Muslims as "muzzies" and believes them to all be "terrorists."

Saddam was a secular dictator. AQ was against secular leadership of Muslim countries. How could you not know that?!?

And since you don't know something as effing basic as that, your opinions are of no value and of no concern.

Got sidetracked into working some hours over the VPN but now I really am going to the gym.

But oh, if your credibility were not already in rags, cuddling up to JakeD would have fixed that.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 11, 2009 10:16 PM | Report abuse

Like I said, good luck arguing with this one (who must be posting from the gym by now -- just don't ever tell him you can post from an iPhone -- since he can't do it, he is sure that no one can ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 11, 2009 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Well put, Jake. There's a reason regime change in Iraq was made official U.S. policy during the Clinton administration, which had the same CIA intelligence Bush relied on.

We knew Saddam had produced chemical and biological weapons (which he'd actually used against the Kurds); had supported international terrorists; had had at least some contacts with AQ; was cheating through the corrupt Food for Oil program giving him resources to re-arm; had been aggressive and reckless enough to invade two of his neighbors and to attempt to assassinate a former U.S. president; had continued to fire on U.S. aircraft; had obstructed international weapons inspectors; and was in continuing violation of countless "binding" UN resolutions.

No wonder 82 Democrat representatives and 29 Dem senators voted for the Iraq war resolution, including such liberal luminaries as Hillary and John Kerry (who fought in Vietnam).

Did I answer your question, GAndT?

Posted by: emmet1 | October 11, 2009 9:58 PM | Report abuse

UN inspectors != intelligence agency (regardless of Saddam's ravings to the contrary). Baghdad Bob also claimed that American troops were not within the city limits WHILE our tanks were rolling in the background.

===

Irrelevant and irreelevant

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 11, 2009 9:56 PM | Report abuse

UN inspectors != intelligence agency (regardless of Saddam's ravings to the contrary). Baghdad Bob also claimed that American troops were not within the city limits WHILE our tanks were rolling in the background.

Posted by: JakeD | October 11, 2009 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Notice how he ignored your question about us "stealing all of their oil".

==

You don't know anything about colonialism. You don't *steal* the oil, you sell it back to its rightful owners at elevated price and pocket the money.

Iraq was no threat to the US, was incapable of harming us and incapable of mounting a real resistance to invasion. OTHERWISE WE WOULD NEVER HAVE INVADED. WE ONLY TAKE ON THE DEFENSELESS.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 11, 2009 9:52 PM | Report abuse

"Every intelligence agency in the world thought so too." What a boatload of bilgewater. The inspectors, those closest, sure didn't think so, which was you you jerks spent so many months calling them various kinds of weaklings.

And even if the belief had been unanimous and universal it was incumbent on the people ordering invasion to determine if it really was worth risking so very much before pulling that trigger.

With thousands of dead troops and many times that number maimed and mindless, the fact that Bush/Cheney were too eager to invade to do their diligence is unpardonable, unconscionable, and criminal.

But hey, some stupid troll with the brains of a tapeworm is "still not convinced."

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 11, 2009 9:49 PM | Report abuse

emmet1:

Notice how he ignored your question about us "stealing all of their oil".

Posted by: JakeD | October 11, 2009 9:46 PM | Report abuse

The FACT is that most Americans were very comfortable being safe rather than sorry on the question of Saddam still having WMD. Every intelligence agency in the world thought he did too. I'm still not convinced they weren't hidden somewhere.

Posted by: JakeD | October 11, 2009 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Maybe that's what NASA was checking -- scrivener50 has the scoop on that conspiracy theory -- I say when send Mr. Valerie Plane to the dark side of the moon to confirm this one too ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 11, 2009 9:35 PM | Report abuse

There might be an alien base on the far side of the moon. We can't see it, and getting real information one way or the other would be real hard. So just to be safe we'd better pulverize the moon. Better safe than sorry.

Oh, there was nothing there but rock and now we have meteors from the fragments destroying whole continents? That's the breaks. Better safe than sorry.

You are SUCH an idiot, Jake.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 11, 2009 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Saddam's "gathering threat" was specifically acknowledged as NOT the traditional "imminent threat" but one where the only smoking gun would be a mushroom cloud -- after 9/11, most Americans were comfortable being safe rather than sorry on that question -- good luck arguing with someone who denies that reality, emmet1.

Posted by: JakeD | October 11, 2009 9:23 PM | Report abuse

rape rooms != war, you dribble case

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 11, 2009 9:14 PM | Report abuse

emmet1:

Like I said, no need to bother with that one. When rape rooms = peace, you can understand why he thinks the Nobel Prize for Obama is deserved.

Posted by: JakeD | October 11, 2009 9:13 PM | Report abuse

This is basic but may be unfamiliar to you. Nuclear weapons requires a vast and expensive infrastructure. saddam's had been destroyed and we were confident in 2003 that it had not been re-constituted.

Chemical and biological weapons production can be carried out in labs or plants that are relatively small and which can be passed off as existing for legitimate civilian purposes. It takes an active inspection program with unrestricted access to develop any confidence that such labs, or pharmaceutical plants or fertilizer plants, are not producing WMD on the sly. Those are the "bakeries".

==

Dude I worked at Hanford so take your presumption of ignorance and put it up the old dirt road. It just so happens I know quite a bit about centrifuging UF6 to exploit the < 1% mass difference between the flourides of the two isotopes. Saddam was nowhere near there, not ever.

And by the "reasoning" of your second paragraph any country with a fertilzer plant is a potential threat and subject to invasion, it's just that we get around to the ones with resources first. A fertilizer plant is a bomb factory, a peanut-butter factory is an aflatoxin plant .. yeah, right. How bloody dishonest. Were you snickering as you typed that?

And how did the potential justify invasion?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 11, 2009 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Then why didn't we find the "bakery?"
-----------
This is basic but may be unfamiliar to you. Nuclear weapons requires a vast and expensive infrastructure. saddam's had been destroyed and we were confident in 2003 that it had not been re-constituted.

Chemical and biological weapons production can be carried out in labs or plants that are relatively small and which can be passed off as existing for legitimate civilian purposes. It takes an active inspection program with unrestricted access to develop any confidence that such labs, or pharmaceutical plants or fertilizer plants, are not producing WMD on the sly. Those are the "bakeries".

Posted by: emmet1 | October 11, 2009 9:03 PM | Report abuse

Arguing with you reminds me of something a sage once said on a mountain top:
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 11, 2009 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Saddam most assuredly had WMD programs throughout the 80s and 90s. About that there's no dispute anywhere. The reports after the war found that he had discontinued these programs and destroyed his stocks of WMD, but that he had retained the capacity to reconstitute them very quickly. Sort of like a bakery that's shut down and gotten rid of its cakes and bread, but still has its ovens and skilled bakers available if conditions change.

==

Then why didn't we find the "bakery?"

We know he had weapons in the 80s because we sold them to him. Anything after that, well, "there's no dispute" is weasel-wording. We purportedly invaded because of imminent threat to our own security, when in reality there was no such damned thing.

And it says a lot about you that you continue to pardon this grotesque lie, and even to continue reciting it, long after its falsehood is established.

I've had it with this. Arguing with liars is pointless. I'm off to the gym.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 11, 2009 8:34 PM | Report abuse

"Death to the dictator" isn't a euphemism for "We want to be a US puppet again."

Iranians hated the Shah too, you know.

You really need to learn some regional history and stop relying on Fox News for your geopolitics. The secularization of the Middle East has only progressed in the absence of US interference and all such progress is lost overnight when the US starts sticking its uh nose into their matters again.

Even Turkey has lost much ground since we started getting active in the region again.

Between 1980 and 2000 Iran had made some gains. Not great ones, but definite secular movement. After 9/11 there were protests in Tehran .. AGAINST al Qaida and in support of the US.

ALL GONE, 'cause your revered little martinet needed an applause line. Aren't you disgusted with this?

Then why are you talking that "appeasement" crap and viewing non-arrogance as weakness?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 11, 2009 8:29 PM | Report abuse

GAndT, calling me "idiot" and "child" doesn't make your arguments any less simple to refute.

You can't reasonably argue that we intended to steal Iraq's oil, or the Saudi's, or Kuwait's, or the emirates', when we could have easily done so but in fact didn't. We're still paying them about $60 a barrel. Some oil thieves we are! BTW, have you noticed how the LEFT NEVER ABANDONS ANY OF THEIR DISCREDITED MEMES? I have.

Saddam most assuredly had WMD programs throughout the 80s and 90s. About that there's no dispute anywhere. The reports after the war found that he had discontinued these programs and destroyed his stocks of WMD, but that he had retained the capacity to reconstitute them very quickly. Sort of like a bakery that's shut down and gotten rid of its cakes and bread, but still has its ovens and skilled bakers available if conditions change.

No one knew Saddam had exited the WMD business. He told his FBI interrogators that he didn't want Iran to know because they might have invaded. His ministers and generals didn't know, nor did our always clueless CIA. Who would have guessed he had destroyed his WMD but was still inexplicably obstructing international inspections? I sure don't remember ANYONE speculating such in 2003.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 11, 2009 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Ahmadinejad's opponent wasn't a western-style revolutionary answering a yearning to be free, he's no friend of the west either.
----------
The Revolutionary Council screened the candidates who were allowed to run in the rigged election. No one who challenged the foundations of the regime even obliquely was allowed on the ballot. The millions of Iranian protesters represent diverse points of view, not just those of the two moderate mullahs who are their titular leaders.

What unites them all is a hatred of the ayatollahs. "Death to the dictator!" is pretty easy to understand.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 11, 2009 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Without oil Saddam would have been unable to afford WMD programs

==

There were no WMD programs you idiot. If you still believe that crap after we invaded and were answered by nothing more than rifle rounds then you need to be where snowbama is. What armed country would leave its weapons unused in the face of invasion?

==

"We obviously didn't intend to steal Iraq's oil or else we would have -- along with Kuwait's, Saudi Arabia's, and the emirates'. That's what Stalin, Hitler or Saddam would have done, but, despite the leftists' paranoid fantasies, we're not looters or imperialists."

HAW HAW HAW

Then why did we invade, child?

Why within two years of his presidency had Bush managed to have troops in the vicinity of the world's two greatest oil deposits? I suppose the fact of an executive branch packed to bursting with oil executives was just some sort of coincidence.

If you think American foreign policy since WWII has ever had anything to do with promoting freedom and nothing to do with advancing corporate interests then you get your politics out of comic books.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 11, 2009 8:00 PM | Report abuse

If Iraq had no oil, it would have no geo-political significance except for its location. If the entire region had no oil, no one would give the Middle East a thought. It would be as ignored internationally as sub-Saharan Africa.

Without oil Saddam would have been unable to afford WMD programs or the Russian weapons he used to invade his neighbors. He wouldn't have been able to sponsor international terrorists. He would have been merely a disaster for his own country, like Robert Mugabe.

We obviously didn't intend to steal Iraq's oil or else we would have -- along with Kuwait's, Saudi Arabia's, and the emirates'. That's what Stalin, Hitler or Saddam would have done, but, despite the leftists' paranoid fantasies, we're not looters or imperialists.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 11, 2009 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Killing all dissidents = peace

==

Considering that the dissidents in question were mostly Islamic radical, what is your point?

Oh, that's right, it's JakeD, the "LOL" was the point.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 11, 2009 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Have you not noticed the huge demonstrations?

==

Answering your screwball revisionism is becoming tiresome. Those demonstrations were protests of a clumsily stolen election, not a cry for freedom or for "economic freedom." Ahmadinejad's opponent wasn't a western-style revolutionary answering a yearning to be free, he's no friend of the west either.

Americans have such a fanatical preoccupation with freedom that it blinds them to other realities (for example "responsibility" and "reciprocity" and "planning for the god damn future" and "some things like schoolyard shootings are not socially desirable"). I like freedom, freedom is good (WAITER! MORE FREEDOM!) but it's not the be-all and end-all of over conflict in the world. The secularism you hope to see emerge in Iran is generations away, and will only come in the absence of American interference. The secular advances after the US lost interest after the I-I war came because we lost interesst and disappeared once Bush needed to sound like a tough li'l monkey and named them as an enemy.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 11, 2009 7:44 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! Killing all dissidents = peace, to a leftist atheist.

Posted by: JakeD | October 11, 2009 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Iraq was peaceful under Saddam because he ruled the place with an iron fist. Anyone who had aspirations to disturb the peace got brutally dead.

We'll probably know who killed JFK long before we know the real reasons for invading Iraq but I bet all that oil beneath the sand had a lot to do with it.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 11, 2009 7:34 PM | Report abuse

emmet1:

He will never answer why he thinks the mullahs are so formidable in Iran or how Iraq was so peaceful under Saddam.

Posted by: JakeD | October 11, 2009 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Have you not noticed the huge demonstrations? One happy day the mullahs will have their Ceausescu moment. No, the Iranians don't want to be like us, except in the sense of being free and prosperous. Only a small group are seventh century fanatics awaiting the return of the Hidden Imam.

I know a good many Iranian expatriates, now American citizens. They're as modern and rational as you or me. Well, more rational than you. Iranians are nothing like Arabs. They are capable of high levels of civilization once they get rid of the mullahs.

My friend was in Teheran and couldn't get a cab to stop. Finally, a stranger walked up to him and suggested he move down the block. He pointed to a nearby mullah trying to hail a cab and explained that was why no cab would stop. Sure enough, my friend moved a few hundred feet and immediately caught a cab. That's just an anecdote, but it's telling.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 11, 2009 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, Iranians secretly want to be just like us, don't they. They want to do away with all that repressive Islamic stuff and become entrepreneurs and sell each other cars and Whitney Houston CDs.

That's why the Shah's westernizing was so very popular.

Oh, wait, it wasn't.

Pretty clear where you're getting your geopolitical "knowledge"

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 11, 2009 6:57 PM | Report abuse

GAndT, maybe so, but it has a better chance of success than negotiating with the mullahs or imposing the sort of meaningless sanctions Russia and China would Approve. I would combine our support for the Iranian people with tough sanctions, such as a gasoline embargo -- Iran lacks the refining capacity to produce much more than half of their own needs.

If we tightened the screws, the Iranians, who HATE the mullahs, would probably finish the job. Iran might turn Hamas loose in the U.S. and Europe, but we're going to have to deal with them after they get nukes, anyway.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 11, 2009 6:50 PM | Report abuse

If Obama would just give the people of Iran moral support and the resistance clandestine economic and military support, the mullahs would soon be dangling from lamp posts. We don't need to invade. Unlike in Iraq, the tyrants would be replaced by pro-American secular liberals (in the traditional sense).

==

This is daydreaming and nothing more

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 11, 2009 6:38 PM | Report abuse

GAndT, you minimized the difficulty of removing Saddam, saying he was weakened by sanctions. Why do you think the mullahs are so formidable?

If Obama would just give the people of Iran moral support and the resistance clandestine economic and military support, the mullahs would soon be dangling from lamp posts. We don't need to invade. Unlike in Iraq, the tyrants would be replaced by pro-American secular liberals (in the traditional sense).

Posted by: emmet1 | October 11, 2009 6:26 PM | Report abuse

what's scary is that many commenters are saying there's a push (supported by Post neo-cons) to start all this nonsense all over again in Iran--the phony intelligence, the hype, the demonizations, the media manipulations, etc.

==

We'd get our azzez kicked. Even without the dangerous loss of readiness and equipment as a result of two needless wars and repeated combat rotations. Iran has a huge military, very well equipped and very well trained, and American troops would pay most dearly for every inch advanced.

Of course among the neocons there are two blinding principles

(1) God's on America's side so pay no attention to the data .. we'll prevail because we're great an' just an' we got liberty an' stuff. And because we dress our women in black .. no, wait, that's the Shiites.

(2) Israel, Israel, Israel. No matter what a neocon's personal nationality, Israel's interests have to come first. We have a moral obligation to make the world safe for Israel so its settler can continue to shoot little girls and shoot farmers trying to reach their land. Never again! Never again!

One can only hope that saner heads prevail this time.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 11, 2009 5:40 PM | Report abuse

shrink2:

(crap removed)

Posted by: JakeD

==

See how it is, S2? You answered one (1) post by this cretin with a reasonable reply, thereby dignifying this gutter-hugging troll with the aplomb of scholarship, and now he calls you out a hundred times a day for more validation.

Are you enjoying not being on his enemy list?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 11, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! I guess that Ruth and everyone else at WaPo are "racists" now for simply pointing out the obvious truth

==

And what would JakeD know about truth? You don't have a hallway nodding acquaintance with truth, everything you post here is a lie.

Starting with your age. Nobody over the age of fifteen uses "LOL"

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 11, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

@G&T: what's scary is that many commenters are saying there's a push (supported by Post neo-cons) to start all this nonsense all over again in Iran--the phony intelligence, the hype, the demonizations, the media manipulations, etc. Again that's what "they" say. They say BHO's resisting and that's the reason for yesterday's opposition to the BHO Nobel win. Don't know, but that's what they say.

==

Meanwhile Israel is now led again by that cowardly and panicky self-important worm Netanyahu, who sees Iran in terms of "Amalak," a mythological figure of Jewish lore, the ancient enemy of all Jews (jackjackjackjackjack), and sees himself as the Savior of His People (jackjackjackjackjackjackjack). Since his brother was killed at Entebbe "Bibi" sees his family as some sort of filial Messiah.

And if Israel does indeed bomb Iran, guess who's going to suffer the most for it.

Meanwhile their settlers continue to steal land, continue to shoot little children in the back and bludgeon old women, and continue to gloat that their own government doesn't enforce their laws.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 11, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

The only thing sadder than Ruth Marcus is George Will. Did you see today's column? He needs more fiber in his diet.

==

My amateur pysch take on Will is that he's impotent. Why even a free classifieds local paper would carry his deplorable writing is beyond me.

And I don't mean ideologically deplorable. I mean deplorable, period. The guy writes like a tenth grader with access to Google.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 11, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

@G&T: what's scary is that many commenters are saying there's a push (supported by Post neo-cons) to start all this nonsense all over again in Iran--the phony intelligence, the hype, the demonizations, the media manipulations, etc. Again that's what "they" say. They say BHO's resisting and that's the reason for yesterday's opposition to the BHO Nobel win. Don't know, but that's what they say.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 11, 2009 4:06 PM | Report abuse

The basic problem, which was not Bush's fault, was hundreds of thousands of passive, immobile poor people living below sea level, and the innate corruption of the local and state governments which failed to maintain the levees and to evacuate the vulnerable.

==

Wrong again.

The problem was that Republicans are reverent of wealth and private industry and are determined to believe that government can't achieve anything, and set out to prove it, and prove it they did.

The weakness of the levies was known, reinforcing them to withstand such a hurricane was trivially feasible given the will and the cash, and both were withheld by the ideology of a pack of thugs.

Revealingly: Bush was appearing at some country music shindig while people drowned, the only destruction that earned his sympathy was Trent Lott's house, and the only engagement the SOB ever showed was his vehemence about looters, with a promised to PUNISH and PUNISH and PUNISH.

Lying is hard work, take a break.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 11, 2009 4:06 PM | Report abuse

The only thing sadder than Ruth Marcus is George Will. Did you see today's column? He needs more fiber in his diet.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | October 11, 2009 4:02 PM | Report abuse

As for the mistake, Bush could have talked about the misinterpretation of "Mission Accomplished", that he was congratulating our forces for accomplishing their mission of overthrowing Saddam.

==

Only problem with this dodge (and that's what it is) is that Bush showed up in a flight suit on a jet and the whole farce was clearly designed to create an appearance of Bush personally crafting the Glorious Victory. He wasn't congratulating the troops, he was trying to make their achievement his own, and among the Republican filth it worked. They were losing control of saliva and bladder all week, dancing from one foot to another and sing-songing taunting-chants about Democrats circling the carrier in an Evinrude and crap like that.

And second it was not a noteworthy achievement. We didn't even contemplate the invasion until we had complete assurances that we were facing a helpless foe. Years and years of embargo had done its job, and if you want to crow and hoot about overpowering a helpless country then your "American exeptionalism" is the stuff of playground bullies.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 11, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

We agree with you, Ruth. You ARE "embarrassing" and ridiculous."

By not congratulating your President on the award (and adding insult to injury by spewing BHO-hate on "Meet the Press"), you embarrassed your country in the front of the World. Evidently, you didn't even read why BHO got the award (or maybe you didn't care). And of course, "Neda of Iran," the Post's favorite, was completely INELIGIBLE because the prize is not awarded post-humously. It's for that reason the Ritz Brothers, Bat Masterson, Houdini, and Charles Lindbergh were also not eligible.

Paging Judith Warner.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 11, 2009 3:54 PM | Report abuse

I don't quite understand those who think Obama should not have accepted the award or those who use his own words of humility against him. Do you really think this humble man would come out and say..."Thank you for the Nobel Peace Prize, I deserve this award for all my accomplishments in life." How juvenile! If he did this, your complaint would be that he is so full of himself. It's a lose-lose situation. One would think this would be a place to talk to level headed people. That's what I get for thinking.

Posted by: ftsprod | October 11, 2009 3:48 PM | Report abuse

To Post management:
1. Can we trade Ruth Marcus for the NY Times' Judith Warner (BHO most extreme supporter)?
2. When will the Post will apologize for not having the common grace and courtesy to congratulate our President for winning the Nobel?
3. Has Jake of "Jake's Place" (formerly "the Fix") been approved for health insurance yet?
4. Wasn't the operative word in David Blowder's buy-out the word "out"? If so why does he still take up print space?
5. What is the difference between the BHO-hating Post and the BHO-hating Washington Times? We can't see any.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 11, 2009 3:34 PM | Report abuse

From Ruth Marcus:

"This is ridiculous -- embarrassing, even. I admire President Obama. I like President Obama. I voted for President Obama. But the peace prize? This is supposed to be for doing, not being -- and it’s no disrespect to the president to suggest he hasn’t done much yet. Certainly not enough to justify the peace prize.

"Extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples?” “[C]aptured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future?” Please. This turns the award into something like pee-wee soccer: everybody wins for trying."

Posted by: JakeD | October 11, 2009 12:57 PM
__________
Again, Ruth does not explain the Post's comically illogical and ill-informed editorial opposing the award to BHO ("Neda of Iran," who the Post said should have gotten the award, was not eligible on multiple various grounds).

Beyond that, many commenters suggested (perhaps on inside information) that the Post writers' [opinionaters') opposition was due to BHO's refusal to bend to neo-con pressure regarding Middle East policy. Again, that's what "they" say, not us.

As for why BHO won, we've posted the Oslo's Committee's reasons for giving BHO the award three times. Folks from other countries cannot believe the bigotry here is so extreme that the Post and others are angry THEIR president won the Nobel Peace Prize. There's no historical precedent for this Bizarro World craziness: BHO win Nobel BAD; warmongering, suppression of civil rights and liberties GOOD.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 11, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

How soon do we forget. Obama is a major part of the dream Martin Luther King was talking about. He has been exemplary to the words peace. He leads with his head and not his emotions. He makes educated decisions and other countries love him as much as the US loves him. Remember during the elections, he was met by the President of France with open arms, he went on an overseas tour where leaders and citizens showed out in record numbers. Name one person in recent history who has promised peace, hope and change in recent past and walked the walk in every day life. A politician none the less. It's not about the war, cause he didn't start it. It's not about accomplishments to come...it's all about what he has done and promises to do as a person and a President. Do we not remember his life story. This excellent lawyer took three years of his life, not collecting a large paycheck that his education afforded him, but lived in a poor community to organize them to believe they deserve better. So, yes...he more than deserves this award and it's a terrible day in America when we debate our President getting such a prestigious award. We should be giving him a standing ovation for this 'cause after all his accomplishments shine a great light on America. As an American, I Salute him for a job well done. CONGRATULATIONS, PRESIDENT OBAMA!

Posted by: ftsprod | October 11, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

shrink2:

I have already noted that Obama could have declined, just like Mickey Kaus pointed out. You're not the only one who thought that would have been a brilliant move. Maybe he will take Peggy Noonan's advice and use his acceptance speech to outline how America has and will bring about peace.

Posted by: JakeD | October 11, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

And oh one more thing .. another dump on Michael Brown wouldn't have mollified me and would have been undeserved. Brown wasn't up to Katrina but he was much more engaged than he's been painted and if you want my opinion he was the fall guy. I don't blame him.

Another one I'm tired of seeing maligned is Dan Quayle.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite
-------------
I agree. I just used Brownie as a mistake GWB could have used to give the media some red meat. While FEMA did a lousy job, the failures of state and local government were much more consequential. Also, the media, as is its m.o., was more sensationalist than informative. All the wild rumors they spread worsened the situation considerably.

The basic problem, which was not Bush's fault, was hundreds of thousands of passive, immobile poor people living below sea level, and the innate corruption of the local and state governments which failed to maintain the levees and to evacuate the vulnerable.

As for the mistake, Bush could have talked about the misinterpretation of "Mission Accomplished", that he was congratulating our forces for accomplishing their mission of overthrowing Saddam. He could have said that he should have put more emphasis on the very difficult tasks remaining.

The real mistake, of course, was the botched occupation. At the time, he didn't see what was coming.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 11, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

It is goofy to say "If I were Obama", but I will anyway, since what I say or think does not matter.

If I were Obama, I would have turned it down. That would have been perfect, to set a peace making challenge before himself and the world of his admirers. In a way, he did. In his speech he said in effect that he did not do anything to deserve it, so why not say no?.

I like him, he is a family man, smart, well intentioned and he will not spend his Presidency clearing brush and performing pratfalls. But I think it would have been brilliant had he turned it down.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 11, 2009 1:20 PM | Report abuse

From Ruth Marcus:

"This is ridiculous -- embarrassing, even. I admire President Obama. I like President Obama. I voted for President Obama. But the peace prize? This is supposed to be for doing, not being -- and it’s no disrespect to the president to suggest he hasn’t done much yet. Certainly not enough to justify the peace prize.

"Extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples?” “[C]aptured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future?” Please. This turns the award into something like pee-wee soccer: everybody wins for trying."

Posted by: JakeD | October 11, 2009 12:57 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! I guess that Ruth and everyone else at WaPo are "racists" now for simply pointing out the obvious truth ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 11, 2009 12:53 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe:

What you (and any other lib) have failed to do is point to ANYTHING that Obama did in his first 12 days as President to actually accomplish any of that, much less create a brand new climate in international politics?

Posted by: JakeD | October 11, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Meet the Press had a good roundtable this morning, and they all admitted this award was premature. Great job, Ruth Marcus!

Posted by: JakeD | October 11, 2009 12:00 PM
___________

My guess is Ruth did not reference the Post's ridiculous editorial yesetrday which argued "Neda of Iran" should have won the Nobel instead. Several, er, problems with that: (1) Neda is not alive and the Nobel Peace Prize is not given posthumously; (2) her tragedy occurred months after the Nobel nominations were closed; and Neda had NO involvement whatsoever in "world peace." Alas, as we've seen with the birthers, the deathers, the tenthers, and the Clown Hall protesters, sometimes BHO hating overcomes reason, logic, and facts.

Commenters yesterday speculated (on what seemed like inside info) the Post is BHO-hatin', not because BHO didn't deserve the award (he obviously did), but because BHO won't do the neo-cons' bidding in the Middle East. That's what "they" say, not us.

Congratulations, Mr. President.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 11, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Since this is "Jake's Place" as of two weeks ago (he seized title by eniment domain from the former host), here's Take 3 just for the J-man (and fellow BHO haters)-- why BHO won:

From the Nobel Prize Committee:

"The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009
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."

Oslo, October 9, 2009"


Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 11, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Meet the Press had a good roundtable this morning, and they all admitted this award was premature. Great job, Ruth Marcus!

Posted by: JakeD | October 11, 2009 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Getting back to the topic (I'm sure that Michael Brown and Danforth Quayle appreciate the shout out):

Can SOMEONE tell me what Obama did his first 12 days in office to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?

Posted by: JakeD | October 11, 2009 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Frank Rich over at the NYT today has a fine column on Republican incompetence and hypocrisy.

Emmet, do you think your little wars designed to scare people into cowing to American exceptionalism (translation, imperial destiny) are free? Who pays for them? Do they "work"? Do they have any unintended consequences?

You declared victory in Iraq, well I sure am glad I am not a member of a Sunni Awakening Committee. The civil war is inevitable and Iran does not intend to lose.

So you think foreign people were afraid of the shrub because he talked tough on TV, would not talk to people he did not like and started wars. No, the feelings of fear and loathing are not mutually exclusive, but no one fears the Republicans, they just hate them.


Posted by: shrink2 | October 11, 2009 10:13 AM | Report abuse

And oh one more thing .. another dump on Michael Brown wouldn't have mollified me and would have been undeserved. Brown wasn't up to Katrina but he was much more engaged than he's been painted and if you want my opinion he was the fall guy. I don't blame him.

Another one I'm tired of seeing maligned is Dan Quayle.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 11, 2009 2:58 AM | Report abuse

GAndT, you're the one who insults people. By "pulling your chain", I just meant pointing out the fallacies in your arguments and getting an angry reaction. I don't hate people I argue with on the internet.

==

Oh please you haven't pointed out any fallacies in my arguments or anyone else's. You exhibit the usual bag of tricks you guys have been using since time began. Distract, dodge, change the subject, change the context.

And you aren't here to debate or express or indulge in the joy of cathartic reasoned opinion. You're here to toss stinkbombs, and unoriginal ones at that. Half a dozen variations on the premature award joke, none of them clever, var.ious nasty asides and twists that all the conservatives are posting today, all no doubt from the same source. Limbaugh or Beck or one of those clowns sending out the phrases of the day.

And when you do engage me or nodebris or whoever you just recite and regurgitate, and of course dodge and distract. Uday and Qusay, Saddam was bad mans, 3000 'Mericans perished on 9/11 ... Petraeus is the Dude .. please

==

"As to Bush not admitting any errors when asked what mistakes he had made, think about it. I'm sure he could have said something like "not hire that moron, Brownie", but would that have done him any good? Or would it have led the evening news on all networks and made banner headlines in the legacy newspapers? It would have been talked about for days and become the butt of joked by Leno, Stewart, and such. You can't win when you're asked that question."

Dodge. Bush's insecurity as manifested by inability to admit error was the take-away there and you know it.

He could have said something like "'If I had it to do over I never would have done that 'Mission Accomplished' stunt in the flightsuit. I was acting like a swaggering frat boy begging to be admired and in any case it was completely premature, the war had just started."

That would have shown a man capable of reflection and introspection and essentially an adult.

But no, he honestly seemed to believe that he was infallible, that every last decision had been unimprovable. That's your notion of a leader?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 11, 2009 2:49 AM | Report abuse

emmet1, facts are our friends. you shouldn't be afraid of them.

Posted by: nodebris | October 11, 2009 2:25 AM | Report abuse

You know you're in trouble when you're forced to resort to quoting Mark Steyn.

Posted by: JakeD | October 11, 2009 1:23 AM | Report abuse

The Nobel prize is like the post-modern version of the Emperor's new clothes: To a fool, His Majesty appears entirely naked. To a wise man, His Majesty is also naked but the wise man is sophisticated enough to admire the potential His Majesty has to be fabulously dressed at some point in the future. --- Mark Steyn

Now I'm going to quit. Zero's Peace Prize is too easy a target.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 11, 2009 12:30 AM | Report abuse

GAndT, you're the one who insults people. By "pulling your chain", I just meant pointing out the fallacies in your arguments and getting an angry reaction. I don't hate people I argue with on the internet.

As to Bush not admitting any errors when asked what mistakes he had made, think about it. I'm sure he could have said something like "not hire that moron, Brownie", but would that have done him any good? Or would it have led the evening news on all networks and made banner headlines in the legacy newspapers? It would have been talked about for days and become the butt of joked by Leno, Stewart, and such. You can't win when you're asked that question.

Do you remember the Dem debate when Obama was asked to name his greatest fault? He could have said inexperience or grandiosity, but he shrewdly answered that his desk was messy. On second thought, Obama might believe that's his worst fault.(I think Edwards said something self-serving, like being too compassionate.)

Posted by: emmet1 | October 10, 2009 11:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama, receiving the Nobel peace prize, contrary to the opinions of Chris, logically and morally should diminish support for his war in Afghanistan. The notion of a Nobel peace winner presiding over an unnecessary military escalation there is inherently contradictory.

The Nobel peace prize should be renamed the Norway Committee of Five "peace" award, to be more accurate and honest. The idea five white people in Norway determine who on the entire planet most merits a peace prize is highly pretentious to say the least. The fact some people who most strongly qualified for a peace prize, especially Gandhi, Eleanor Roosevelt and Pope John Paul II did not receive the award undermines the credibility of the entire "honor." Franklin D Roosevelt did more to promote international peace, through the Good Neighbor Policy and creation of the United Nations, than Theodore Roosevelt, who glorified war, or Wilson, who along with his three predecessors were the imperialist presidents.

The Norway Committee of Five and most Europeans seem to confuse Obama's frequent lofty rhetoric with the reality his foreign policies have not led to any significant achievements yet.
His multilateral approach in international relations is a refreshing change from the dark ages of the Bush-Cheney regime, but hardly different from most presidents since FDR.

Giving Obama the peace prize based upon promising rhetoric, but no real accomplishments, undermines the credibility of the Nobel "peace" prize, but there have been other selections even less worthy of the award.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | October 10, 2009 11:04 PM | Report abuse

At least I'm not a hypocrit[e] about it.

==

drink Drano, Jake

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 10, 2009 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Please explain why this matters.

==

Have you lost context ALREADY?!?

Bush threatened Iran to sound like a tough guy. As a result of that bluster Iran is on its way to having nuclear weapons.

And you've done several dozen posts excoriating Obama for being conciliatory instead of blustering.

If you need the dots connected more than that, go find a 12-year-old to explain it to you.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 10, 2009 10:57 PM | Report abuse

Also, it's fun pulling your chain.

==

Spoken like an American, the only people I know of who think it's fun to bother people.

If you ever wanted to know why I'm retiring to Viet Nam, there's one of the main reasons.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 10, 2009 10:55 PM | Report abuse

As you probably don't allow yourself to recall, the Iranian nuclear program was mothballed until Bush named them as part of an "axis of evil."
-------
Please explain why this matters. When Iran's bombs go off, I for one won't care who's to blame. Bush handled Iran horribly, FWIW.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 10, 2009 10:41 PM | Report abuse

GAndT, FYI I'm a huge college football fan, and I've been watching SEC football since 11 AM. I type during lulls. I do enjoy writing and sometimes pretend there's an intelligent reader that I'm writing for. But mainly, I just like to organize and express my thoughts whether anyone reads them or not.

Also, it's fun pulling your chain. :)

Posted by: emmet1 | October 10, 2009 10:37 PM | Report abuse

Obama has made clear he doesn't believe in American exceptionalism or America's special role and responsibility as the one global superpower.

==

He hasn't made this anywhere near clear enough for me.

If you believe in American exceptionalism then you're morally bankrupt. We are one nation among many.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 10, 2009 10:37 PM | Report abuse

I feel 100% confident in predicting Iran will detonate a nuclear device

==

As you probably don't allow yourself to recall, the Iranian nuclear program was mothballed until Bush named them as part of an "axis of evil."

And look at the examples .. if you have nuclear weapons at all, even the most perfunctory ability to exceed the power of dynamite, you get left alone. Just ask Kim Jong Il.

On the other hand if you're not armed you get invaded by foreign troops and your head of state handed over to a lynch mob. Just as Saddam Hussein.

Iran wants to look more like North Korea than Iraq, do you blame them?

Pity Bush couldn't have found some less destructive way to show the world what a tough little monkey he was.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 10, 2009 10:33 PM | Report abuse

I'd say Obama is sadly burdened with the task of proving that we are still who we have always been, despite the previous administration. Some call that "criticizing America." I don't.

==

When a human being is able to admit a mistake and learn from it we call that "building character."

Yet when a president admits that his country has been in the wrong we call that "betrayal."

Well, some people call it that.

I'll never forget when Bush was asked by a reporter what he would have done differently, what mistakes he made, Bush made a big show of puffing out his cheeks and being "deep in thought," and in the end, nothing, zip, nada .. every decision had been the right one.

That's not the behavior of an adult.

The only Republican I can think of who owned up to error was Arnold Schwarzenegger, and his ability to exhibit character-building got his esteem back and got him re-elected.

So go ahead, Emmet and the rest of you, attack Obama for "apologizing," but don't expect anyone outside the 20-percenters to see maturity as betrayal.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 10, 2009 10:29 PM | Report abuse

nodebris, I certainly support Obama when it comes to keeping America safe, the first responsibility of any president. Some of his other goals I don't support, but I still recognize his authority as CinC.

I deeply resent Obama's attitude that American history was a cause for shame before we were magically redeemed by his own election. George Bush made some mistakes, as will Obama, but he was a patriot who kept us safe and assembled some impressive international coalitions. It's unseemly, or worse, for Obama to trash his predecessor every opportunity he gets. It's also unprecedented.

American commitments made by one administration are not nullified when a new president is sworn in. And if there was "torture", as opposed to interrogation techniques you don't approve of, then someone should go to prison. But there weren't. Also, demonizing Gitmo and those who worked there is unfair, counter-productive and stupid. There's a reason Obama hasn't figured out how to close it.

You can't really be an anti-American president, no matter how poorly you think of your country. Once you take the oath of office, you own American history and you represent our interests, which are mostly unchanged no matter who's president. It's like being the attorney for a client you don't respect. You can't ethically go around trashing him.

Bush attempted to work through the U.N. and to assemble "coalitions of the willing". Sometimes this succeeded, but with North Korea and Iran the multilateral approach led nowhere. Obama is even more committed to this strategy than Bush, and is much more lenient with our adversaries.

I feel 100% confident in predicting Iran will detonate a nuclear device, hopefully just a test, in the next few years unless Israel stops them -- because Obama won't. Obama will give the Russians and Chinese a veto over any international sanctions, which they will exercise.

Obama has made clear he doesn't believe in American exceptionalism or America's special role and responsibility as the one global superpower. Many on the left, including Obama, want to see the U.S. assume a role as just one of the big countries acting under the aegis of the UN, International Court, IMF, etc. We'll be like Gulliver tied down by the Lilliputians, which is what the Lilliputians want, but it will be a bad thing for us and for the peaceful nations of the world.

Without paramount American power, we are headed for a world of every nation for itself and of regional hegemons, like China, Russia, Iran and maybe Venezuela. International institutions cannot save the world from chaos and from oppression of the weak by the strong any more than the UN can save those pitiful children in Darfur.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 10, 2009 10:25 PM | Report abuse

At least I'm not a hypocrit about it.

Posted by: JakeD | October 10, 2009 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Since there is really nothing more to say about Obama's award and instead the topic has crab-walked over to the "apology tour" nonsense, allow me to observe that the two- and three-flavor rice takeout from Saigon Deli at 12th and Jackson in Seattle is incomparably excellent.

Every cell of my being is screaming its gratitude.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 10, 2009 10:24 PM | Report abuse

Look who does a hundred or more posts a day, week in week out. My six posts span less than a half hour, you're here for EIGHTEEN HOURS A DAY sometimes.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 10, 2009 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Look who has posted six times since 9:44 PM on a Saturday night.

Posted by: JakeD | October 10, 2009 10:12 PM | Report abuse

I believe everything I say.

==

Nobody else believes anything you say.

Go ahead, make some stupid dodge on a literal take on "nobody," you god damned idiot.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 10, 2009 9:57 PM | Report abuse

gah, emmet1, aggressively argue your positions but run from jaked. He defiles conservatism. I'm looking for someone who can defend it.

==

Jake was born a moron, Emmett is stuck to moronic ideas for some reason, but in the end who cares.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 10, 2009 9:55 PM | Report abuse

nodebris:

I believe everything I say.

Posted by: JakeD | October 10, 2009 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Obama got a Nobel Prize and all I got was this pink slip.

==

huh huh huh where'd you hear that, the Pig Farm Bar and Grille?

huh huh huh

Just imagine if McCain had won; assuming Palin hadn't poiseoned him by now to get her mitts on the nukes and bring about the Rapture, where would our economy be?

He's by cutting spending, cutting taxes, unemployment would be accelerating instead of decelerating, and he'd be unable to change course because admitting that a plan didnd't work is something Republicans are too insecure to ever manage.

"Earmarks!"

Why don't you go back to whatever knuckle-dragging site you usually post on and boast that you "brought the liberal blog to its knees." Maybe one of the bog-troll girls with the swastika tattoo will find you attractive or something.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 10, 2009 9:53 PM | Report abuse

gah, emmet1, aggressively argue your positions but run from jaked. He defiles conservatism. I'm looking for someone who can defend it.

Posted by: nodebris | October 10, 2009 9:51 PM | Report abuse

emmet1:

I tried to warn you.

Posted by: JakeD | October 10, 2009 9:48 PM | Report abuse

I've just argued with him for a few minutes, but so far I'd say emmet1 is worlds different than jaked. emmet1 believes what he is saying. jaked says anything without regard for whether he believes it or not.

Posted by: nodebris | October 10, 2009 9:48 PM | Report abuse

I wish the USA did become more like Europe. I'd like universal health care, six weeks of vacation per year, and governments not dedicated to broadening the advantages of their richest citizens.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 10, 2009 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Not just post after post after post but dozens of posts after dozens of posts after dozens of posts, and every one of them the same dull, snarky, snotty, sarcastic dig at Obama.

One post, two posts, on the same topic, means someone has an opinion.

Dozens of interchangeable and indistinguishable posts mean we have another god damn pest.

Emmett, it's a Saturday, and instead of out living life you're haunting The Fix and clogging it up with your thick-witted bitterness and your pointless dissatisfaction with Obama's award. We already have two pests who clog this place up like a sink drain loaded with hair, we DON'T NEED ANOTHER.

And not only are you repetetive as JakeD, your arguments are sh*t.

Take Israel for example .. Israel's settlements are criminal activity, a squatter movement stealing land from an occupied people, justified in their minds by some ancient religious "principle" and against international law.

Every president for DECADES has been against the settlements and they vary in how determined they are to express that opposition; Obama is only a little more adamant than most, and others have been more so. To parlay opposition to the greatest obstacle to Middle East peace as "betraying our allies" is dishonest as hell, so I guess we have you pegged.

A Republican.

I suppose you'll spend Saturday night repeating your stupid joke about premature awards in a few more dull variations, while people with lives are out getting laid and visiting friends and family.

What a loser.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 10, 2009 9:44 PM | Report abuse

You know you're in trouble when you're forced to resort to quoting Dick Morris.

Posted by: nodebris | October 10, 2009 9:40 PM | Report abuse

emmet1:

From Dick Morris:

"Whether it was rewarding Jimmy Carter for criticizing the Iraq War or supporting Al Gore in his crusade against global warming, the Norwegian Parliament - which chooses the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize - has sought to use the award as a political tool to influence American politics.   Its prestige and moral power make the prize a potent weapon with which to help steer the direction of the colossus beyond the seas that controls a quarter of the world's economy and most of its military power.

Now, the Norwegians have weighed in to support Barack Obama in his bid to reshape America so it looks more like, well, Norway, or at least like Europe."

Posted by: JakeD | October 10, 2009 9:38 PM | Report abuse

I mean, emmet1, by "criticizing America," do you mean rejecting torture, which George Washington specifically rejected, which Americans have explicitly and publicly rejected for over 200 years, before the Bush administration secretly adopted it? Is rejecting torture "criticizing America?" Or re-affirming American ideals that were sadly, mistakenly rejected by one seriously off-track administration.

I'd say Obama is sadly burdened with the task of proving that we are still who we have always been, despite the previous administration. Some call that "criticizing America." I don't.

Posted by: nodebris | October 10, 2009 9:36 PM | Report abuse

emmet1:
"Obama's criticism of America"

That's out of line. Criticizing a clearly failed administration and clearly failed policies is not criticizing America. Or else you are criticizing America every time you criticize Obama. The GOP is not America. Bush is not America. Criticizing them is not criticizing America.

"willingness to break agreements with allies"

With Israel: a word of mouth, undocumented, unsigned agreement, by the last failed administration, that broke sixty years of U.S. policy. I applaud him for "breaking" it, even though the agreement you mention never existed in any real sense.

"Poland and the Czech Republic"

For an unproven, non-existent missile shield that would cost us millions and probably wouldn't even work? That was massively unpopular with their own people? That they only agreed to because our last administration forced it down their throats? Oh, please. You can't simultaneously argue that Europeans hate and love Obama, you know.

"readiness to subordinate U.S. sovereignty to international institutions"

Are you aware that all of these "international institutions" are OUR creations, to further OUR interests in the world, and in which we have an DISPROPORTIONATE voice? Read a little history! Yes, let's throw away the advantage in international politics we've been conscientiously building through Republican and Democratic administrations since WWII. Good idea!

And on and on you go.

Hey, you re-elected Bush and he never "showed you the money" -- unless it was showing it rush into China's pockets. You gave him two terms and eight years to wreck America. Give Obama one term and four years before you make up your mind that he is a failure. You'll get to choose again. In the meantime, support your president.

Posted by: nodebris | October 10, 2009 9:18 PM | Report abuse

I heard this today:

Obama got a Nobel Prize and all I got was this pink slip.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 10, 2009 9:03 PM | Report abuse

nodebris, you make a good point. It is indeed a positive for our president to be popular internationally. I'm glad some countries like us more than they did a year ago. My caveats are: Why do they like us more? Also, is this popularity resulting in tangible foreign policy successes?

As to the first, I fear it has a lot to do with Obama's criticism of America, both explicit and implicit; his willingness to break agreements with allies such as Israel (re construction within existing settlements) and Poland and the Czech Republic (re missile defense); and his readiness to subordinate U.S. sovereignty to international institutions.

As to the second caveat, if this new popularity has advanced any of our vital interests, I unaware of it. For instance, "old Europe" loves Obama but hasn't provided additional troops and equipment to Afghanistan. Our enemies and quasi-enemies seem to like us more, but they're still pursuing their interests versus ours as avidly as ever.

In short, I'm glad we're more popular, but "show me the money". Life, including international relations, is more than a popularity contest. As Machiavelli said, it's better for a leader to be feared than loved. And no one fears Obama.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 10, 2009 7:21 PM | Report abuse

nodebris, i should have said I'd be furious if someone threw a shoe at Obama. It would be an insult to the United States, and it would be close to treasonous to rejoice over it.

When it comes to criticizing or ridiculing a president, that's what we do in America.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 10, 2009 6:59 PM | Report abuse

emmet1 wrote: "I wouldn't like it if someone threw a shoe at Obama."

I bet.

"But laughing at politicians is a tradition as old as the republic."

So what's wrong about laughing at Bush? Double standard?

And quibbling aside, the point stands: isn't it better that the world (not just five socialists in Norway) likes us much better now? As an American, aren't you glad that that this likely makes our national foreign policy goals much more achievable than they were when the whole world intensely disliked and disrespected our president? As an American, don't you consider that advantageous?

I would think it a fine thing for us if the world is *absurdly* in love with our President, as an American. But you have some other standard by which you measure it, I presume. "Country First," wasn't that the motto of your last campaign? Riiiiiight.

Posted by: nodebris | October 10, 2009 6:56 PM | Report abuse

nodebris, I wouldn't like it if someone threw a shoe at Obama. He's my President, too, as much as I may disagree with him. But laughing at politicians is a tradition as old as the republic. It's what separates us from hell-holes like Cuba, Libya and the mullahs' Iran.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 10, 2009 6:47 PM | Report abuse

By the way, "my side" is America. What's yours?

Posted by: nodebris | October 10, 2009 6:42 PM | Report abuse

emmet1: Two wrongs make a right?

Posted by: nodebris | October 10, 2009 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Better having unearned accolades thrown at us than shoes.

Posted by: nodebris
-----------
Your side loved it when a shoe was thrown at President Bush. Why is it wrong when our side laughs at the "unearned accolade" given to President Obama by five Norwegian socialists?

Double standard?

Posted by: emmet1 | October 10, 2009 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Republicans really do have nothing.
Nothing, thats right, nothing.

Same thing over and over. Lets hear the joke about your kid winning an award for something he did 20 years from now, again. How about calling BHO an empty suit. How about this: criticize the Democrats because your life sucks.

Meanwhile, the country you think you care about has moved on. Losers.

Hey Republicans, why don't you (1) start winning some elections and (2) elect some politicians who solve problems.

I'll bet Arnold can not wait to get out of politics. It turns out you can't just say funny stuff in a foreign accent and problems go away. Who knew?

Republicans are ridiculous.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 10, 2009 6:20 PM | Report abuse

emmet1:

Pointing out it is "odd" when he was in office only 12 days is "racist". So is opposing Obamacare, even if you opposed Hillarycare too.

Posted by: JakeD | October 10, 2009 6:18 PM | Report abuse

emmet1: The GOP hates the world. The world hates the GOP. Suck it up.

Posted by: nodebris | October 10, 2009 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Better having unearned accolades thrown at us than shoes.

Posted by: nodebris | October 10, 2009 6:15 PM | Report abuse

bwj, almost everyone acknowledges Obama hasn't yet done anything to deserve the award, even liberal commentators who love the guy. The posters you refer to on the WaPo blog are probably Obama's dozens of czars. Now we know what they do.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 10, 2009 5:57 PM | Report abuse

There may be some head scratching at the Post's editorial board meeting on Monday.

First, almost every commenter on the Post's various articles on the Nobel savaged the Post for its inexplicable anti-BHO negativity in its coverage (dramatically different from the NYT's positive and respectful coverage).

Second, Fred Hiatt's Post editorial went on and on about he was "embarrassed for" BHO in winning the award and said he believed "Neda of Iran" clearly should have won. Indeed, the "Neda of Iran"-should-have-won narrative was the MAIN cover for his BHO attack. Well, there's a problem with that: "Neda" is not alive and the Nobel has a well known policy against giving awards posthumously. Easier to opinionate than fact-check? Oh well.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 10, 2009 5:13 PM | Report abuse

biilw3, I agree. Oslo was rewarding Obama for not being Bush, expressing appreciation for his multilateral rhetoric and U.N.-friendly policy priorities, and most of all trying to influence his future policy decisions.

Why the opinion of five Norwegian socialists should count for anything escapes me.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 10, 2009 4:58 PM | Report abuse

"I have always said that if President Obama walked on water, the Republicans would criticize him."
___________

Your take tracks Congressman Grayson's remarks the other day. He said, paraphrasing, that if BHO achieved world peace, the opposition would criticize him for putting the defense industry out of business.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 10, 2009 4:57 PM | Report abuse


By accepting the Nobel Prize award Obama is now in a lose-lose situstion. If he is too aggressive against Afgan--, Iran, or North Korea, he belies his pretty words that won the award, and if too passive, he is caving in to the five members who gave him the award.

.

Posted by: Billw3 | October 10, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

On the other hand, the biggest critics of the award so far are the GOP and . . . the Taliban. Twins separated at birth?

Posted by: nodebris | October 10, 2009 3:19 PM | Report abuse

"has drawn rave reviews in some quarters"

Look at that. Castro and the Iranians are more gracious than the GOP. Go figure.

Posted by: nodebris | October 10, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

I have always said that if President Obama walked on water, the Republicans would criticize him. Well, winning the Nobel Peace price may not be walking on water but it is a distinguished award that most Republican leaders would love to put in their resume. So what do they do? Give John McCain credit. He was the only one who said that the President should be congratulated. The rest of them proved to be the small minded people they are. Some of them even played the race card suggesting that the Nobel committee had an "affirmative action program" and that's why Obama won. Shame on them!

Posted by: Opa2 | October 10, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

To be fair, Obama's Peace Prize has drawn rave reviews in some quarters:

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said the Nobel Prize Committee's decision was "evidence of a realistic vision of the dynamics of world development."

Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro called Obama's Nobel Prize a "positive measure."

In an article, Castro said the Nobel committee decision was designed to criticize "the politics of genocide" pursued by Obama's predecessors.

A spokesman for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tehran hoped it would give Obama "the incentive to walk in the path of bringing justice to the world order."

No doubt.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 10, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe, criticism of Obama has nothing to do with his father being a Kenyan. If his father had been from Equador or Latvia, he'd still be aN unqualified leftist poseur, but he wouldn't have been annointed President or Nobel Peace Prize recipient BEFORE HE ACTUALLY DID ANYTHING.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 10, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse


broadwayjoe opined:
"It's sad the extent to which bigotry has infected the so-called mainstream media"

Fairly typical Obama supporter response to anything negative about the narcissist-in-chief. When up against it, you folks usually do one of three things:
1. Name-call
2. Knock Bush
3. Play the race card

The tables are turning in the media, broadway type Joe. Suck it up.

.

Posted by: Billw3 | October 10, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Excellent summation from the WaPo editorial board:

"It’s an odd Nobel Peace Prize that almost makes you embarrassed for the honoree".

I guess the "almost" is apropos because no undeserved accolade or grandiosity ever seems to embarrass our narcissist in chief.


Posted by: emmet1 | October 10, 2009 1:04 PM
______________
About 89 percent of the public comments today on the Post's ridiculous article, and equally foolish and bigoted editorial, on BHO winning the Nobel CONDEMNED the Post. This is a VERY dark day for a paper that 30 years ago -- the "Woodstein" years -- was great.

It's sad the extent to which bigotry has infected the so-called mainstream media...or maybe it was there all along and just needed a black president to bring it to the surface. BHO wins Nobel bad. Bigotry, corporate corruption, and warmongering good. Oy.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 10, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Excellent summation from the WaPo editorial board:

"It’s an odd Nobel Peace Prize that almost makes you embarrassed for the honoree".

I guess the "almost" is apropos because no undeserved accolade or grandiosity ever seems to embarrass our narcissist in chief.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 10, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Republicans do not solve problems.
They gave up.
Now they are just ridiculous.

Tried everything in their book, military adventures, the culture war, tax cuts for the rich, asset bubbles, but everything that matters got worse on their watch, it is an inarguable fact.

All they have to soothe themselves is invective and of course, buying more bullets.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 10, 2009 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Sharing a comment critical of the Post's absurdly negative coverage today of the BHO's Nobel win:

"jaxas wrote:
Because broadwayjoe, it is the only logical explanation for the bitter nature of Obama's critics. It can't simply be ideology because the truth is that all of the blather about "socialism" aside, the stimulus bill and the bank bailouts along with the auto companay bailouts were bipartisan efforts taken to ward off a financial collapse most of which were enacted before Obama took office.

And what else are we to think when we see buffoons on the street with their depictions of Obama as a "witchdoctor" or we see cartoons in conservative publicans depicting him as a dead chimpanzee? It is not as if you people have come up with any specific alternatives. We all know what you are against but we have precious little to tell us what specifically you are for. Oversimplified slogans about freedom, liberty, limited government and low taxes tell us absolutely nothing about how you would practically go about solving problems.

No. The only thing we are left with is the squalid feeling that most of this animus toward this good and decent man has to do with the color of his skin and nothing else.
10/10/2009 9:45:10 AM"

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 10, 2009 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Euros will never get America.
The disconnect starts with our
"rugged individualism" creation myth.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 10, 2009 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Euros will never get America.
The disconnect starts with our
"rugged individualism" creation myth.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 10, 2009 9:36 AM | Report abuse

A lot of folks upset at the Post's spate of idiotic negative stories on our President's winning the Nobel.

The Post devoted virtually all its coverage to the bigots and fools who insist that winning the award is a BAD thing.

The Euros who commented on the Post's coverage today can't believe it: they ask why "some" Americans, including many of the self-described liberal writers (turns out they're not so liberal in the Hiatt era), are upset their President received an award. The Euros say when their leaders win such honors, the country rejoices. We tried to explain it's something called irrational racism and jealousy. Oh well.

Again congrats to our President. Hope he didn't read the Post today but used it to line Bo's doghouse.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 10, 2009 9:23 AM | Report abuse

I must be some kind of genius, David Brooks and Roger Cohen (10/5) write the same thing I've been writing about health care "reform" for months. Krugman says a jobless recovery is no recovery, but it all has to get fixed alongside the educational system. Soon they will be adding 2+2 and saying if Obama wants to deserve his Peace Prize, he better get people to work.

But the thing the pundits don't yet get is where the jobs are supposed to come from.

Today Herbert says, naturally, public works, WPA like make-work jobs, well that is stupid, no one can go from a labor camp in the woods to the work force of the 21st century. And small business tax credits just because Republicans like them: hoooey! Just what exactly are the small businesses supposed to make and sell, that is that China can not make and sell more cheaply? Or are we all supposed to service each other in the service economy?

Take a step back and see how overpopulated, literally overpopulated the labor market is and you will see why the old methods will not work anymore. Well in the dying days of the old great powers, they would generally stage a war to direct the unemployment anger, that is how bad it can get.

The past few recoveries of this era depended upon asset bubbles and always, cheap energy. Again, this will be have to be different. The Nobel prize winning question is whether we can have an economy that is not based in cheap energy, overheated investment inflating the bubble de jour, or underpaid labor making stuff consumers don't need (China's economic model is also unsustainable)?

I say yes, but it is going to require a national agreement on the nature of this beast. When Herbert quoted Faulkner as saying, "The past is not dead, it is not even past," he really betrayed himself.

Glad he is not my general, he is all geared up to fight the last war.


Posted by: shrink2 | October 10, 2009 9:10 AM | Report abuse

The fact that the 5 Socialist judges in Oslo chose to play politics with the once coveted award, they have relegated it to nothing more than an expensive paper weight. What a shame for all the people who have deserved to win the Nobel Prize for their years of hard work and committment. Barack Obama has not nothing to earn this award. I am very glad that he is giving the money to charity. It's the right thing to do. This Prize was designed to be a poke in the eye of George Bush and the old fools failed miserably. George Bush doesn't give a big rat's patootie and Barack Obama has been embarrassed in front of the world. The best laid plans of mice and men....

Posted by: priley8104 | October 10, 2009 4:13 AM | Report abuse

Do you know that the Nobel Committee is appointed by the Norwegian Parliament -- just a bunch of socialist hacks?

==

And if they'd picked Dick Cheney you'd be doing some aboriginal dancing taunt all day long and praising the wisdom of those "socialist hacks."

Really ought to be careful how you use that word .. gotta whole voting generation now that never had to Duck and Cover and who only know the Cold War from history class. Following the rapacious ruin of right-wing economics and into an era of trying to clean up the messes, screaming about successful policies as "socialism" may not have quite the effect you were looking for.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 10, 2009 1:37 AM | Report abuse

Like I said the Kanye Wests' are trying to snatch the victory and the moment from the winner even before the Pres made his acceptance speech. What a bunch of hypocrites and Jockasses

Posted by: MILLER123 | October 9, 2009 10:27 PM | Report abuse

silverspring8, you just said what Republicans have been saying all day, as well as many Democrats, independents and even WaPo liberal columnists. The difference is that what you applaud others have deplored or ridiculed.

Everyone with a brain realizes that Obama has no accomplishments in this area. He won because of some multilateralist rhetoric disparaging America's exceptionalism and world leadership and, mosy of all, because he's not George Bush.

The interesting question is why should we care. Like Time's Person of the Year, the recognition is much diminished by the awarder's blatant political bias. Do you know that the Nobel Committee is appointed by the Norwegian Parliament -- just a bunch of socialist hacks?

We should just as logically check with the legislatures of other minor nations, say Paraguay, Uganda and Singapore, and see who they think contributed most to peace. Why should a bunch of Norwegian pols, who previously acknowledged that they gave their award to Carter and Gore just to poke a finger in President Bush's eye, be taken seriously?

Posted by: emmet1 | October 9, 2009 10:27 PM | Report abuse

You can be sure of one thing -- the Republi-cons will say this is a joke, irrelevant, unwarranted, etc. A year from now, they will mock him for not living up to the standards of the very honor at which they now laugh.

This is NOT a peace prize for President Obama per se, as even the most ardent Democrat would agree that he hasn't accomplished much in the way of peace -- yet. It ABSOLUTELY IS a slap in the face to the Bush Administration by the Nobel Committee. It is a political statement by the Norwegians, nothing more.

Further, the IOC's decision to award the 2016 Olympics to Brazil was not a slap in the face for President Obama. It was a slap in the face for the U.S. Olympic Committee, which has been at odds with the IOC. The President didn't close the deal because there was never any deal to close.

Get a grip, people.

Posted by: SilverSpring8 | October 9, 2009 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Sorry to hear about your mind. Maybe a break from blogging would help.

==

that sort of missing-the-point literalism sounds exactly like our sanctioned troll

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Likewise, we deposed the Taliban

==

We briefly marginalized the Taliban and nothing more.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 9:09 PM | Report abuse

The invasion of Iraq was a brilliant success by any standards of military history.

==

PLONK

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 9:08 PM | Report abuse

I give up with you. I'm not arguing with a whole mind.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite
------------
Sorry to hear about your mind. Maybe a break from blogging would help.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 9, 2009 9:06 PM | Report abuse

douglaslbarber, I don't think you mean "adults" -- you mean leaders who can see everything the future holds. The invasion of Iraq was a brilliant success by any standards of military history. It was the ensuing occupation that turned into a fiasco until Petraeus and his brilliantly executed COIN strategy saved our bacon.

Likewise, we deposed the Taliban with very little cost in lives and treasure, but a few years later we let things start getting away from us. Now I hope we're about to try COIN there, too. At least that's what Obama decided back in March. Now that he's a Peace Laureate, who knows?

One of the few sensible things Hitler said is that going to war is like entering a dark room. Our military expresses the same concept by saying that no war plan survives first contact with the enemy. I wish we has "adults" to tell us what the results of our actions will be, but even "the best and brightest" can be wrong -- a good reason for humility but not for isolationism or pacifism. History shows us where those lead.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 9, 2009 9:03 PM | Report abuse

Dude, would you PLEASE try to keep up?

The hostage-taking was four years prior to that, I mean really, can't you even TRY?!?

The point is that WE SUPPLIED SADDAM WITH WEAPONS AND REGARDED HIM AS AN ALLY and he was THE SAME GUY WE CALLED A BRUTAL TYRANT A FEW YEARS LATER.

I give up with you. I'm not arguing with a whole mind.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 8:48 PM | Report abuse

GAndT, some of what you say is correct. However, the Iranian Hostage Crisis was far more than just Iran hurting our feelings. They also tortured to death our CIA station chief and blew up our Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, killing 299 servicemen. Why would you use an expression like "hurt our feelings", implying we're overly sensitive to minor slights?

Posted by: emmet1 | October 9, 2009 8:44 PM | Report abuse

If "adults" had really been in charge when we went to war with Hussein's government, and had those so-called adults told the American people "this is what you'll probably get (a more powerful Iran), and this is what it'll probably cost (body bags, brain injured veterans and men without legs who hold out tin cups on streetcorners", would the people have gone for it?

==

And if in August 2001 the American people were told that we were going to have troops in Afghanistan in October would they have stood still for it?

Probably not.

But that's what they told the Taliban.

And by the time October rolled around, why, nobody objected.

Prescient, huh?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 8:42 PM | Report abuse

emmet1, please reply to this argument:

By dislodging the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein, the USA has purchased a powerful ally for Iran at a considerable cost in American lives, maimings, and treasure.

If "adults" had really been in charge when we went to war with Hussein's government, and had those so-called adults told the American people "this is what you'll probably get (a more powerful Iran), and this is what it'll probably cost (body bags, brain injured veterans and men without legs who hold out tin cups on streetcorners", would the people have gone for it?

Posted by: douglaslbarber | October 9, 2009 8:37 PM | Report abuse

I never said Saddam was a saint, I guess you slayed THAT strawman dead.

If you think that our invasion of Iraq had anything to do with Saddam's tyranny or that anyone in the Bush administration gave a rat's a§§ about his sons feeding people into chippers then you're just demented.

We've been in bed with worse than him, and we WERE in bed with him after Iran hurt our feelings in '79. He was Our Guy.

Anyway you're weaving all over the road. Iraq, 9/11, Petraeus, see if you can get a scrip for dexamil, it might help you focus.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 8:29 PM | Report abuse

GAndT, to be serious for a moment, I understand your opposition to the Iraq war. But you shouldn't let that obscure what a monster Saddam was. He was a smaller time Hitler or Stalin, a scourge to his people and his neighbors and a sponsor of international terrorists, though not AQ. We don't know exactly how many he killed, but here's a summary from a left-leaning organization.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/internationalhumanrights/p/saddam_hussein.htm

What Petraeus accomplished in Iraq was heroic and saved many hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. Let's pray the peace holds.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 9, 2009 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Stale old put-downs too.

Go back to stormfront.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 8:13 PM | Report abuse

GAndT, it pains me to say this, as I admire your fervor, but in a battle of wits you're an unarmed man.

In a battle of half-wits, however, you're well-prepared.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 9, 2009 8:10 PM | Report abuse

In the U.S. about 3000.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 9, 2009 8:03 PM

------

Please don't try to invoke the armor of 9/11 for your Iraq War arguments. It's become so painful to watch.

Posted by: ponkey | October 9, 2009 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Sorry to dodge your question about how many people were killed by suicide bombers in 2001.

In the U.S. about 3000.

==

ooooOOOOooooooOOOOO!!!!

I was talking about February 2001 in Iraq.

If you can't keep up go "debate" somewhere else. You're as addled as our primary troll.

Probably just another of his monikers.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 8:04 PM | Report abuse

You mean when Ouday and Quesay were feeding people feet first into wood shredders -- just for kicks? There are no reliable records.

==

Dodge.

How many people were killed by suicide bombers?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite
--------------
Sorry to dodge your question about how many people were killed by suicide bombers in 2001.

In the U.S. about 3000.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 9, 2009 8:03 PM | Report abuse

He didn't DO any of that in his first 12 days in office (assuming, again, arguendo that he is legally President of the United States).

Posted by: JakeD

-----------------------

JakeD, you have a lot of interesting things to say. Hinting that the birthers may be onto something diminishes everything else you write.

It's such a "Republican ghetto" argument - I mean to say it's an argument lacking evidence that could convince anyone who didn't approach the whole question with an almost uncontrollable desire to discredit the president.

Your allusion to it, for instance, trivializes your defense of the right to life, which is something the "Democratic ghetto" loves to mock - but really ought to pay closer attention to.

Be well.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | October 9, 2009 8:02 PM | Report abuse

You mean when Ouday and Quesay were feeding people feet first into wood shredders -- just for kicks? There are no reliable records.

==

Dodge.

How many people were killed by suicide bombers?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Gator-ron, be honest. When you first heard this morning of Obama winning the prize, was your first thought, "What for?" I suspect that was the reaction of a couple of hundred million Americans.

==

No, only from a few million lousy Republican swine.

I was proud.

You weren't.

What more need be said?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Gator-ron, be honest. When you first heard this morning of Obama winning the prize, was your first thought, "What for?" I suspect that was the reaction of a couple of hundred million Americans.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 9, 2009 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Compare the civilian deaths in Iraq in February '07 as the surge was beginning (2864) to the civilian deaths last month (96). What a remarkable change!

==

How many were there in February 2001?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite
-------------
You mean when Ouday and Quesay were feeding people feet first into wood shredders -- just for kicks? There are no reliable records.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 9, 2009 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Don't bother with that one, trust me.

==

this from the "one" who whimpers for attention on here every day.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Compare the civilian deaths in Iraq in February '07 as the surge was beginning (2864) to the civilian deaths last month (96). What a remarkable change!

==

How many were there in February 2001?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 7:33 PM | Report abuse

emmet1:

Don't bother with that one, trust me.

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 7:32 PM | Report abuse

@Gator-Ron: no surprise there, the Republicans both elected and electorate are openly pining for American calamity as a way back to power. They literally have the same goals as AQ, as bizarre as that seems.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 7:30 PM | Report abuse

In a sane world, the Nobel Peace Prize would go to the man who finally brought peace to Iraq, General David Petraeus.

==

That's so cute how you guys are so reverent with titles of people you "like." Course it isn't hard to get on your like-list, all anyone has to do it put on a suit and tie and you guys are on your knees.

Petraeus is a capable man but I would hardly call Iraq "peaceful."

It was "peaceful" before we decide to invade, for reasons that STILL have not been revealed to us.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite
----------------
You're correct that Iraq is still not entirely peaceful. There are still terrorists and car bombs, but the homicide rate probably compares roughly with other third world locales like Chicago.

Compare the civilian deaths in Iraq in February '07 as the surge was beginning (2864) to the civilian deaths last month (96). What a remarkable change! http://www.icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx

In a way, Petraeus, Ordierno, and the others negotiated a peace agreement between the Sunnis and Shias -- one that seems to be holding. Isn't this worthy of Nobel recognition? After Obama has done something comparable, by all means recognize his achievements, too.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 9, 2009 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Not going to be a lot of good jobs for an uneducated workforce:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/opinion/09krugman.html?hp

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 7:28 PM | Report abuse

It is a sordid mind that is not pleased that Obama won this. Michael Steel and the leader of Hamas and many on this site share the opinion he does not deserve it. They probably all agree with the leader of Taliban as well. Republicans take positions that make them in agreement with international pariahs and the ones who threaten this country.

Posted by: Gator-ron | October 9, 2009 7:26 PM | Report abuse

We used to say, you want peace, fight for justice. Now, you want a peace prize, run a country that grows real jobs.

No jobs, no peace. It was true in Wiemar Germany, it is true in Afghanistan, it is true here. People need to work in order to value peace (and no, not in labor camps, not on collective farms, not in Hell).

I'm out.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 9, 2009 7:24 PM | Report abuse

So we spent trillions on two pointless wars and will spend trillions more on medical care for returning soldiers over the next few decades, all of it "off-budget" and borrowed, I didn't hear a peep of caution out of the GOP trolls about THAT.

Nobody affiliated in any way with the GOP has a leg to stand on when it comes to fiscal restraint. It's no wonder these guys are immune to hypocrisy, they'd hemmorhage.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 7:23 PM | Report abuse

I am not for any government spending, new plans, reforms, or any other project that does not have sustainable (no flash in the pan, temporary, no future) living wage jobs as the #1 objective. Xe/Haliburton notwithstanding, wars do not fit the model. The health bill could, it could be just what the doctor ordered, but so far, it sucks.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 9, 2009 7:19 PM | Report abuse

How about we START by not spending a bunch of borrowed money on Obamacare?

==

"Obamacare" will *save* us hundreds of billions, fool.

Who do you think pays when the uninsured go to the ER?

Grow a brain.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 7:17 PM | Report abuse

"...finally brought peace to Iraq..."

Uh oh, pretty far out there in the clear blue sky on this one emmet. Got wings?

If you are correct then you are prescient, but everyone with two feet on the ground is worried about what happens when our kids come home.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 9, 2009 7:12 PM | Report abuse

dudh:

You're not here for a discussion, are you?

shrink2:

How about we START by not spending a bunch of borrowed money on Obamacare?

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 7:12 PM | Report abuse

In a sane world, the Nobel Peace Prize would go to the man who finally brought peace to Iraq, General David Petraeus.

==

That's so cute how you guys are so reverent with titles of people you "like." Course it isn't hard to get on your like-list, all anyone has to do it put on a suit and tie and you guys are on your knees.

Petraeus is a capable man but I would hardly call Iraq "peaceful."

It was "peaceful" before we decide to invade, for reasons that STILL have not been revealed to us.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 7:10 PM | Report abuse

A clear endorsement by the world community that American leadership has been restored, and a clarion call for the hard work that President Obama has ahead, with our wholehearted support, and the support of our allies, to meet this promise.

Posted by: dudh | October 9, 2009 7:07 PM | Report abuse

"So gorby handed over a crumbling and defeated empire and won. Now Barry is expected to do the same."

I am shocked and sickened to find the Obama haters describing America as a crumbling and defeated empire.

Actually, "Barry" is expected to prevent America from continuing the decline Reagan started and the Bush/Cheney people accelerated.

There is only one way to do that though, stop spending money we don't have. Even Bill Clinton figured that out. Borrowing Chinese worker's money is no way to rebuild the America's looted economy.

Everyone has to work, it is the only way. Full employment for living wage jobs. All the rest of this is stupid, a distraction.


Posted by: shrink2 | October 9, 2009 7:06 PM | Report abuse

retiredzoomie:

No.

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Teddy Roosevelt negotiated an end to the Russo-Japanes War. Woodrow Wilson Started the League of Nations and negotiated the Treaty of Versailles (how did those work out?). Obama has made speeches.

In a sane world, the Nobel Peace Prize would go to the man who finally brought peace to Iraq, General David Petraeus.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 9, 2009 6:54 PM | Report abuse

I love how the wingnuts are coming apart today.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 6:53 PM | Report abuse

emmet1 (from that last article I linked to):

Sydney Peace Foundation director Stuart Rees said Mr Obama had been given the prize prematurely. Professor Rees said Mr Obama's win came as a massive shock and he had much work to do if he was to live up to the award.

"We've all got our fingers crossed (Obama) can wave his magic wand and make these things happen. Perhaps the Nobel organisation wants to give him a magic wand," he said. "I think the guy is full of promise but I don't think the promise has been realised yet particularly in regards the Middle East."

Mr Obama's name had been mentioned in speculation before the award but many Nobel watchers believed it was too early to honour the US President. Observers had also suggested there was no obvious candidate for the prize as no major conflicts had been resolved by peaceful means in the past year.

Speculation had focused on Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, Colombian senator Piedad Cordoba and jailed Chinese dissident Hu Jia, along with an Afghan women's rights activist Sima Samar.

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Thorbjoern Jagland says it WAS unanimous:

"Shock as Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize"

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26190445-2703,00.html

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps someone should remind Sen. McCaskill (D-MO) that there was criticism when Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize too, not to mention Henry Kissinger (as Professor Retsos pointed out below).

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 6:42 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe, the McCaskill quote just illustrate how political this crummy award has become. Obama, the promising young leftist who still HASN'T DONE ANYTHING, won over Chinese dissidents and Zimbabwean dissidents who have been jailed and who have demonstrated great courage advocating the cause of freedom.

Obama has made speeches saying what the left wants to hear about America's history and her proper role in the world. So has E.J. Dionne.


zimbabwean

Posted by: emmet1 | October 9, 2009 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Rush Limbaugh:
"I think that everybody is laughing. Our president is a worldwide joke. Folks, do you realize something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about and that is he doesn't deserve the award. Now that's hilarious, that I'm on the same side of something with the Taliban, and that we all are on the same side as the Taliban."

I believe that would constitute lending aid and comfort to the enemy - how about it, Dittoheads?

Posted by: retiredzoomie | October 9, 2009 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Today is a great day for President Obama and for America and there is nothing the filth can do about it except whine.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 6:29 PM
______

...and whine they are doing. Rush, Morning Joe, Ed Rollins, the whole wingnut crowd--all totally unhinged about BHO winning the Nobel Prize. They seem angry their one year of non-stop bigoted BHO bashing has had NO effect on the world community's admiration of him. I'm certain Beck and Hannity will have one hour specials expressing their outrage. Their reaction to this, and earlier to the loss of the Olympics, has totally exposed how their white hot prejudice has trumped their commonsense.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 9, 2009 6:39 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I never called anyone who disagreed with George Bush's foreign policy (while on U.S. soil) "unpatriotic" -- in fact, I haven't even disagreed with the Nobel Peace Prize committee on this award -- asking procedural questions (was it a unanimous vote?) is hardly "boo[ing]".

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Today is a great day for President Obama and for America and there is nothing the filth can do about it except whine.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Let's allow Claire McCaskill, an O-Nation icon, have the last word in all this. Tell em, Claire!

"I feel that I’m in an alternative universe. For eight years some people called anyone who disagreed with the President’s foreign policy or war in Iraq unpatriotic. Then in the course of two weeks, those same people cheer when the United States does not get selected for the Olympics and boo when our President is the unanimous choice for the Nobel Peace Prize. Go figure.

Congratulations Mr. President for standing up to the scorn and derision of your opponents in the election when you firmly stood for the proposition that strength meant being willing to talk to your enemies, not just your allies. Thank you for the confidence and wisdom to say that a hand will be extended when their fist is unclenched. And thank you for understanding that our national security rests on our principles, the example we set for the world, and our alliances along with the excellence and strength of our military, rather than exclusively the latter. God Bless America."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/9/791630/-McCaskill:-R-Criticism-of-Obama-Nobel-Prize-is-Like-Twilight-Zone-

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 9, 2009 6:23 PM | Report abuse

As a reminder, you posted the following:

"Compare to Bush up [SIC] for worst president in US history."

Posted by: dudh | October 9, 2009 5:49 PM

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 6:19 PM | Report abuse

If you need attention so bad Jake then get a dog. Nobody here wants to have anything to do with you.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 6:17 PM | Report abuse

dudh:

Is "I dunno" an answer to my questions to you?

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Look how mad the tiny people get!

==

I'm praying they don't survive the news

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 6:14 PM | Report abuse

I dunno. I kinda like it a lot that Prez Obama got the award. Call to action is right! Leadership.

Look how mad the tiny people get!

Posted by: dudh | October 9, 2009 6:13 PM | Report abuse

jdadson, good analysis. I think you've cracked the code. The Committee is trying to influence future behavior rather than reward past actions. They definitely are playing to the One's vanity and grandiosity. How can he escalate in Afghanistan or use force against Iran or anyone else now that he's a Peace Prize winner?

What a sick joke!

Posted by: emmet1 | October 9, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

This space informed us of what some guy named "Curt Anderson" thought of BHO getting the Nobel Prize. Why I should care about what he thinks is unclear. No mention, though, of what the DNC had to say. Their reaction (from Daily Kos):

"The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists — the Taliban and Hamas this morning — in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize. Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize — an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride — unless of course you are the Republican Party. The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It’s no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore – it’s an embarrassing label to claim."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 9, 2009 6:07 PM | Report abuse

The Nobel committee may have done something quite cunning - probably by accident.

The way to influence a narcissistic personality (which is what we are dealing with here) is never to persuade, coax, or castigate. The narcissist will reject all criticism with anger, denial, and blame. But if you praise the narcissist for doing what you want him to do - even if he has not actually done it - you may get results.

I do not think it will work, but it was worth a shot. If there are still troops in Afghanistan and Iraq six months from now, we will know the gesture was futile.

Posted by: jdadson | October 9, 2009 6:04 PM | Report abuse

emmet1:

Just checking ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Good one, snowbama!

P.S. to emmet1:

Do you want to see me gone?

Posted by: JakeD
----------
Your posts are a voice of sanity among a gaggle of deranged liberals. Please continue to speak without fear.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 9, 2009 6:01 PM | Report abuse

He hasn't been "awarded" anything yet, if you want to get technical.

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 6:01 PM | Report abuse

ponkey:

Procedural questions always get asked first, my friend.

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 5:58 PM | Report abuse

He didn't DO any of that in his first 12 days in office (assuming, again, arguendo that he is legally President of the United States). I'll give you a gentleman's "C" for effort.

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 5:48 PM

--------

And the decision to award him the Nobel Prize wasn't made after his first 12 days in office. You get a C- for failing to understand the difference between nomination and award, but I'll bump that up to an even C if you go and self-study how easy it is to be nominated for a Nobel Prize.

I don't even really want to take the position that he 'deserves' the Nobel Peace Prize, but your argument is just too awful to let stand.

Posted by: ponkey | October 9, 2009 5:56 PM | Report abuse

dudh:

You want someone to argue that Bush was a better President than Obama? Is English your native language?

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 5:52 PM | Report abuse

You pathetic old man. Either you knew it was Austen Chamberlain, in which case you most certainly did try to mislead, since the name Austen Chamberlain is now meaningless, or you were simply incorrect and didn't know it was Austen and not Neville.

So which was it? Very simple question.

==

He's not an old man, he's at most sixteen years old. Old men don't use winky smilies or "LOL."

He got the list of former recipients from some email all these bedwetters get every day, the "phrase of the day," the alleged arguments they're all supposed to write in concert. Shirley you've noticed that all the wingnuts post the exact same "points?"

He just copied the list into here without checking.

He's certainly never heard of Austin and all he knows about Neville is the "peace in our time" line, he doubtless knows nothing at all about how Bush-like Neville was, intolerant of disagreement and surrounded by sycophants.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Obama wants to destroy American capitalism and our pre-eminent role in the world

and why not. we've been on top for long enough. give fidel, hugo, Muanhumar and the colonel a shot at it.

Deep down we are all the same you know. except some are more equal than others.

doubt me? ask tax cheat guithner and wrangle who the rules are for.

ask gore who needs to cut back on electricity.

Ask letterman and NBC who employment rules are for.

Posted by: snowbama | October 9, 2009 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Compare to Bush up for worst president in US history.

Posted by: dudh | October 9, 2009 5:49 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe (let me give you the answer):

He didn't DO any of that in his first 12 days in office (assuming, again, arguendo that he is legally President of the United States). I'll give you a gentleman's "C" for effort.

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 5:48 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe (maybe you can answer my question now):

What of that did Barack Hussein Obama ACTUALLY DO in his first 12 days as President?

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 5:32 PM
_________
Let's try this again. Take 2.

From the Nobel Prize Committee:

"The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009
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."

Oslo, October 9, 2009"

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 9, 2009 5:46 PM | Report abuse

"I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments ... 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 ..."

==

That's called humility you damned idiot

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 5:46 PM | Report abuse

How Nobel Peace Prize Could HURT Obama:

http://www.yahoo.com/s/1143851

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 5:45 PM | Report abuse

For the record, even OBAMA agrees he doesn't deserve this award:

"I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments ... 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 ..."

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 5:44 PM | Report abuse

So gorby handed over a crumbling and defeated empire and won. Now Barry is expected to do the same.

Posted by: snowbama-
--------
Well put. The main difference is that Gorby tried to save Soviet Communism and empire, while Obama wants to destroy American capitalism and our pre-eminent role in the world -- both of which he sees as pernicious. "White man's greed runs a world in need."

Posted by: emmet1 | October 9, 2009 5:44 PM | Report abuse

koolkat_1960:

Too bad you don't answer my simple questions, huh. DDAWD is going to be really pissed you "fed the troll" today ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 5:41 PM | Report abuse

"This just in now,the Chicago Tribune poll on Barack Obama being given the Nobel Prize
for Peace is even showing Chicago Residents
overwhelmingly oppose it by 55% to 45% and
the last time I checked the SFGate.com they
showed 37% Disagree with the Nobel Prize Committee and only 34% agree Obama deserves
the Nobel Prize and take note of WAPO too!..But,remember in 1938 the Nobel Prize Committee Nominated Adolf Hitler,on the hopes Adolf Hitler would not Invade Norway.
So,anyone remember how that turned out? So,
is Comrade Mad Man Barack Obama planning to
Invade Norway as well? Obama Is Disgusting."

Wow, what a vile post. You're sad.

BTW, do you think anyone cares about what some idiotic internet poll says?

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | October 9, 2009 5:39 PM | Report abuse

anyone's idea of a scholar.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite


Is a guy with no papers, no publications, no tenure, no research, no conferences, in fact only a ghost written book and a couple of elections won by fraud to show for himself. Oh yeah and a Nobel prize. like Kruggman and Gore and Carter and Arafat.

there are nobel prizes and then there is this.

Posted by: snowbama | October 9, 2009 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Bush invaded the wrong country. Twice.

Obama bested John McCain (and Sarah Palin).

No wonder the wingnuts are wretching blood today.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Good one, snowbama!

P.S. to emmet1:

Do you want to see me gone?

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 5:37 PM | Report abuse

"I didn't deliberately try to mislead anyone. Just as I didn't "say" or "mean" Neville Chamberlain. Perhaps you should re-group or tag out with "drindl" or even "scrivener50"."

You pathetic old man. Either you knew it was Austen Chamberlain, in which case you most certainly did try to mislead, since the name Austen Chamberlain is now meaningless, or you were simply incorrect and didn't know it was Austen and not Neville.

So which was it? Very simple question.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | October 9, 2009 5:36 PM | Report abuse

This just in now,the Chicago Tribune poll on Barack Obama being given the Nobel Prize
for Peace is even showing Chicago Residents
overwhelmingly oppose it by 55% to 45% and
the last time I checked the SFGate.com they
showed 37% Disagree with the Nobel Prize Committee and only 34% agree Obama deserves
the Nobel Prize and take note of WAPO too!..But,remember in 1938 the Nobel Prize Committee Nominated Adolf Hitler,on the hopes Adolf Hitler would not Invade Norway.
So,anyone remember how that turned out? So,
is Comrade Mad Man Barack Obama planning to
Invade Norway as well? Obama Is Disgusting.

Posted by: carleen09 | October 9, 2009 5:35 PM | Report abuse

FWIW (see video above) even Barack Hussein Obama does not view it as a recognition of his own accomplishments.

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 5:35 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe, the thing is: OBAMA HASN'T DONE ANYTHING YET. The leftist Nobel Committee gave him the prize because he's not George Bush and because they want him to do certain things in the future. It was a payment in advance for behaving like a Euro-wuss. It is a political award to a kindred spirit -- the first post-American president, and probably the first anti-American president.

==

it's OK to cry, emmett.

Go on, let it out. You'll feel better.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite
----------------------
What's there to cry about? If Obama had brought about world peace or even regional or local peace, I'd be celebrating. Since he hasn't, I'm just asking like everyone else, WTF?


It doesn't take long to figure out why the bunch yhat honored Arafat and ElBaradei would honor Obama. They EXPECT him to do certain things: leave Iran's mullahs alone, abandon Afghanistan, subordinate our sovereignty to international organizations, close Gitmo, etc.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 9, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Shut up Jake we've all seen this troll before and nobody is interested in reading thirty or forty backpedal posts from the guy everyone here wants to see gone.

Just pack up your boogers and your "Runner's World" and go the hell away.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

drivl is manning the drive through at burger king for the dinner rush.

she will brag she was quickly promoted from fry cook to cashier.

but until that first advertiser comes through on her blog..................

Posted by: snowbama | October 9, 2009 5:33 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe (maybe you can answer my question now):

What of that did Barack Hussein Obama ACTUALLY DO in his first 12 days as President?

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Oh right, proving you deliberately tried to mislead readers doesn't destroy your post. You go, boy!

==

I bet he thought it was Neville. Don't forget who we're talking about here, not exactly anyone's idea of a scholar.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 5:31 PM | Report abuse

I didn't deliberately try to mislead anyone. Just as I didn't "say" or "mean" Neville Chamberlain. Perhaps you should re-group or tag out with "drindl" or even "scrivener50".

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 5:30 PM | Report abuse

For those who have asked why the Committee awarded President Barack H. Obama the Nobel Prize, here's the answer as articulated by the Committee:

"The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009
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."

Oslo, October 9, 2009"

We are so proud of you, Mr. President.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 9, 2009 5:29 PM | Report abuse

"koolkat_1960:

I would quibble over Gorbachev and Mandela, and you certainly didn't "destroy" my post by admitting I didn't say or mean Neville Chamberlain. Nice try though.

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 5:22 PM | Report abuse "

Oh right, proving you deliberately tried to mislead readers doesn't destroy your post. You go, boy!

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | October 9, 2009 5:27 PM | Report abuse

So gorby handed over a crumbling and defeated empire and won. Now Barry is expected to do the same.

Posted by: snowbama | October 9, 2009 5:27 PM | Report abuse

koolkat_1960:

I would quibble over Gorbachev and Mandela, and you certainly didn't "destroy" my post by admitting I didn't say or mean Neville Chamberlain. Nice try though.

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 5:22 PM | Report abuse

"I never said NEVILLE Chamberlain.

==

but that's what you meant

You've worn out your "autistic literalism" troll long ago. You're a liar, and that's all you are."

He's a joke. He didn't "say" Neville Chamberlain and he didn't "mean" Neville Chamberlain, because he knew Neville Chamberlain never won the NPP. But he said "Chamberlain" because he knew many if not most readers of these boards would simply "think" Neville Chamberlain because the rightwingnuts have already been calling Obama an appeaser and that's what Neville Chamberlain is remembered as. Without "Chamberlain," his post was much weaker but now I've destroyed his post anyway.

And who would quibble over Gorbachev and Mandela, anyway? Gorby helped joked's idol Reagan end the cold war, and Mandela helped end apartheid in South Africa.

Arafat, ok, but the NPP has been since 1901 and like any award there are bound to be some clunkers in retrospect.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | October 9, 2009 5:18 PM | Report abuse

So? You can't do anything to anyone from D Ward.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite


and with that tidbit, we reach the pinnicle of thought for this baboon. time for happy hour anyway. enjoy the ranting.

later he'll stop by the middle school for a try at dessert, on his way home to solitude and loneliness.

Posted by: snowbama | October 9, 2009 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Show me former winners of the Nobel Peace prize who have actually brought about world peace - can you? NO! It's not the accomplishment so much as the desire, the will and the attempts to do such. Who knows maybe this time .. . . . . . . at least it's something to hope for in this crazy world that we occupy.
Again, I believe he was being recognized for NOT being GWB - that alone gives the world HOPE!
Posted by: Kathy5 "

In 1976 the Nobel Committee gave the award to BETTY WILLIAMS and MAIREAD CORRIGAN Founders of the Northern Ireland Peace Movement (later renamed Community of Peace People). For their efforts to end the Troubles. In 1998 The prize was awarded jointly to: JOHN HUME and DAVID TRIMBLE for their efforts to find a peaceful solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland. They were a whole closer at that point to actually ending them. Still, the troubles aren't yet ended.

Aspirational?

In 1994 The prize was awarded jointly to: YASSER ARAFAT , Chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO, President of the Palestinian National Authority. SHIMON PERES , Foreign Minister of Israel.
YITZHAK RABIN , Prime Minister of Israel. for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East. That peace process was ended within the year wioth the assassination of Rabin and the election of Netanyahu.

Aspirational?

We can sometimes only hope, and sometimes Hope is all we have left.

Posted by: ceflynline | October 9, 2009 5:16 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe:

I didn't ask you any of that. Do you need me to have the court reporter repeat my question to you?

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 5:14 PM | Report abuse

I never said NEVILLE Chamberlain.

==

but that's what you meant

You've worn out your "autistic literalism" troll long ago. You're a liar, and that's all you are.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Worst NPP choice ever:
the tie goes to Arafat and Kissinger

Best ever:
Gorbachev. Delivered a dying military superpower, peacefully, to its enemies. Never before in history had that happened. Hope we never have to find out if it can happen again.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 9, 2009 5:10 PM | Report abuse

"Debates" that I don't care to have:

Whether BHO winning the most important award on the planet is a good thing.
Whether water is wet (I know Jake will like that).
Whether is ice is cold.
Whether there is a downside to having a 4.0 grade point average.
Whether hitting .400 in major league baseball is desirable.
Whether broadcast bigots, most of whom barely graduated from high school, have standing to attack BHO, former president of the Harvard Law Review.
Whether BHO should have tried to win the Olympics for the United States.
Whether being the only industrialized nation without universal health care is should be a source of pride.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 9, 2009 5:10 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe, the thing is: OBAMA HASN'T DONE ANYTHING YET. The leftist Nobel Committee gave him the prize because he's not George Bush and because they want him to do certain things in the future. It was a payment in advance for behaving like a Euro-wuss. It is a political award to a kindred spirit -- the first post-American president, and probably the first anti-American president.

==

it's OK to cry, emmett.

Go on, let it out. You'll feel better.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 5:09 PM | Report abuse

G&T: The only point to be taken from that post is that joked is a piece of garbage who wants people to think that appeaser Neville Chamberlain was awarded the NPP. This was actually Sir Austen Chamberlain.

Just thought I'd point that out. 8>D

==

a LYING piece of garbage.

Wonder what he has against Mandela?

Oh, of course, he isn't white. Forgot for a second.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 5:07 PM | Report abuse

emmet1:

Assuming arguendo he is even legally "President".

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe, the thing is: OBAMA HASN'T DONE ANYTHING YET. The leftist Nobel Committee gave him the prize because he's not George Bush and because they want him to do certain things in the future. It was a payment in advance for behaving like a Euro-wuss. It is a political award to a kindred spirit -- the first post-American president, and probably the first anti-American president.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 9, 2009 5:02 PM | Report abuse

koolkat_1960:

I never said NEVILLE Chamberlain.

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 5:01 PM | Report abuse

ceflynline:

January 20, 2009 was just ONE stop on Barack's World Apology Tour, you're right about that.

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 5:00 PM | Report abuse

"ceflynline:

Don't forget that the "award" was given to Chamberlain, Gorbachev, Mandela, and Arafat too ; )"

G&T: The only point to be taken from that post is that joked is a piece of garbage who wants people to think that appeaser Neville Chamberlain was awarded the NPP. This was actually Sir Austen Chamberlain.

Just thought I'd point that out. 8>D

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | October 9, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse

I see dead people. I know what you read and where you live.

==

So? You can't do anything to anyone from D Ward.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Even Josh Marshall was at something of a loss for words this morning:

"I notice the condemnation of the Taliban, the edged snark of the superciliati. But I also see Ana Marie Cox's first-off Twitter: 'Apparently Nobel prizes now being awarded to anyone who is not George Bush.' And while less than generous, I think she's on to the root of the matter. But perhaps not precisely in the way she thinks.

This is an odd award. You'd expect it to come later in Obama's presidency and tied to some particular event or accomplishment ..."

My sentiments exactly.

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Vitriol worked pretty well for the Dems, IIRC.

==

You don't recall correctly.

Republican leadership wasn't leadership, GWB screwed up everything he tried, trashed the economy, delayed responding to global warming, got us into two unnecessary and very expensive wars, and most of all alienated our allies and brought comfort to our enemies. The Democrats didn't have to do squat to end Republican dominance, just HAND THEM THE ROPE.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 4:57 PM | Report abuse

"It is too early for him to have earned the Nobel since he hasn't accomplished much since he has been on the job. This makes me suspect the prize as just another manipulative political trick to mesmerize the people. The Right Wingers are going to have fun with this. Posted by: DL13 "

Depends on your definition of accomplishment.

In his Inaugural Address he definitely put the U. S. back on the path of working with the rest of the world to establish the necessary conditions for peace that Bush had so blatantly left from day one of HIS administration. Merely by admitting that the U. S. needed the rest of the world as partners to accomplish the good we need for peace he made substantive changes in the climate for peace in the world. He then set about disengaging the U. S. from the mess in Iraq, began talking TO therest of the world instaed of yelling at it. He ratcheted down the rhetoric and ramped up the cooperation.

ALL in that one speach.

Then he set about making his words concrete.

He HAS accomplished a great deal in making peace in the world possible again, and seems to be continuing to work on revising and extending his remarks and his results.

Of COURSE the Republicans are unhappy.

They don't want peace. It costs them too much of their platform.

Congrats, Mr. President. Now maybe you can join the truly elite group, DOUBLE winners of Nobel Prizes.

Maybe in Economics for cleaning up the Banking community and short stopping the second great depression.

Here's praying for results in those fields worthy of the prize.

Posted by: ceflynline | October 9, 2009 4:56 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe:

Perhaps you can list what Barack Hussein Obama did in his first 12 days as President to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

stupidest post of the day:

These guys get emails from Rush or someone telling them what "points" to make each day. It's no wonder they ALL post the exact same god damn things, barely varying the words at all.

I see dead people. I know what you read and where you live.

Posted by: snowbama | October 9, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse

HuffPo is reporting the bigo-, er, "commentators" from "Morning Joe" went ballistic on hearing of BHO getting the Nobel Prize.

Joe and crew say there is "no upside" and the "damage is done." You see: winning the Nobel Prize is bad, at least when the recipient is, in supremacist terminology, a mud person. Get it? This is truly Superman's Bizarro World where good is bad. Comically, this Nobel Prize award is really exposing all of the bigots among the commentators, "journalists," and analysts; they are really unhinged about the award.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/obama-nobel-prize-a-disas_n_314997.html

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 9, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse

This strategy of the right of attacking Obama fall any and everything in the hopes of undermining his effectiveness is getting a bit old. Vitriol is hardly a long-term winning strategy

Posted by: fulrich
-----------------
Vitriol worked pretty well for the Dems, IIRC.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 9, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

It has occurred to me that perhaps arab or muslim money is behind this. I know Nobel left his money for this, but bribes are still possible. The muslim population in Norway has been increasing in the last 40 yrs.

==

Why don't you stick to demanding to see his birth certificate or planning for the Rapture.

Stupidest post thus far and that's saying a lot.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 4:49 PM | Report abuse

marlenelangert:

I hope you will consider voting against Obama next time around : )

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 4:49 PM | Report abuse

What is wrong with these people who openly bash the President of the United States for winning the most prestigious award in the world? What are you, jealous? In case you don't get it, he's being recognized for restoring credibility with the rest of the world - and focusing on issues that truly matter to Americans and our allies. I had to repeat this earlier blog - because whomever wrote it is SPOT ON.

Said it before, will say it again, if you are annoyed or angry that the President of the United States of America has received recognition for working towards global peace, then there is something seriously wrong with you..irrespective of party lines, it is a proud day for Americans..if you don't feel proud, then take a good long look in the mirror, you will find that you are not proud of what you see there..

Posted by: eileenrivera | October 9, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

fulrich:

He could have declined, like Mickey Kaus pointed out. I also don't attack Obama for any and everything (i.e. not closing GTMO and sending a surge to Afghanistan ; )

rgn1:

It's rather easy to ask for more troops. Getting them out is the hard part.

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 4:47 PM | Report abuse

It has occurred to me that perhaps arab or muslim money is behind this. I know Nobel left his money for this, but bribes are still possible. The muslim population in Norway has been increasing in the last 40 yrs. I feel that Obama is being paid off not to send more troops to Afganistan. JUst watch what happens. I hope I am wrong. I do not give a darn who laughs at me. This is my theory. If he has any sense, and I believe he does, he will turn it down and send in the troops, not the clowns.

And to answer someone above me, NO, I have no respect anymore for the Nobel Peace Prize. Arafat and Jimmy Carter???? You must be kidding!!!!

By the way, I am a registered democrat and have not changed parties. Voted for Obama in the primaries and then found out who he really is and that was a big change in my life!

Posted by: marlenelangert | October 9, 2009 4:47 PM | Report abuse

assuming his job is to give more speeches and avoid ever making a single decision, I think he will do fine.

Posted by: snowbama | October 9, 2009 4:46 PM | Report abuse

How does a military commander in either Iraq or Afghanistan, up to their eyeballs in combat, ask their Noble Peace Prize winner and Commander in Chief for more troops to do their job?

==

Obama should be able to handle the multitasking of "being the NPP winner" and "doing his job."

You must be thinking of his predecessor.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 4:45 PM | Report abuse

How does a military commander in either Iraq or Afghanistan, up to their eyeballs in combat, ask their Noble Peace Prize winner and Commander in Chief for more troops to do their job? Tough position.

Posted by: rgn1 | October 9, 2009 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Don't forget that the "award" was given to Chamberlain, Gorbachev, Mandela, and Arafat too

==

uh, so? Is there supposed to be a point lurking in there somewhere?

Oh, wait, you snivelling gooper jerks hate all four of those guys, right?

Well, you hate pretty much everyone so why should anyone care? The NPP is a globally respected award and if you want to add your disrespect for it to all your other idiotic and ugly positions you go right the hell ahead.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Let's see, the president of the U.S. wins prestigeous international recognition and this is an occasion to bash the president. I thought all those Republicans were patriotic. Attack the President for something he had nothing to do with--getting the Prize--and insult the world where he has raised American image and effectiveness immeasurably.
This strategy of the right of attacking Obama fall any and everything in the hopes of undermining his effectiveness is getting a bit old. Vitriol is hardly a long-term winning strategy

Posted by: fulrich | October 9, 2009 4:39 PM | Report abuse

ceflynline:

Don't forget that the "award" was given to Chamberlain, Gorbachev, Mandela, and Arafat too ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Considering that the Nobel Committee has now totally bracketed Reaganism by awarding Jimmie Carter, (years late), Al Gore, (in a timely fashion) and Barack Obama, for being a message of hope that America will now go back to being an agent of peace instead of a cocksure, strutting, bully.

Message seems quite clear to me. Will we accept it?

Posted by: ceflynline | October 9, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

I just got back from the country club, where we all had a good laugh about "Obama, the Nobel Prize and What It All Means" too ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 9, 2009 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Reading the comments from the wingnuts on here is better than Buddy Hackett. Must be a real lousy day to be a Republican.

Yesterday wasn't so hot either and tomorrow isn't looking too good.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite


this is the anti-intellectual mush that we are treated to on a regular basis. hate and envy wrapped up in insult and appeasement dipped in a crust of cowardice and surrender.

what a sad, lonely and pitiful life. It will go on all night, not having a friend in the world is tough.

Posted by: snowbama | October 9, 2009 4:16 PM | Report abuse

President Obama, his team and supporters courting the World
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlfKdbWwruY

Courting all Independent and Obamacans and potential Obamacans for Health Care Reform and the 2010 elections.

JK Wedding Entrance Dance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-94JhLEiN0

Democrats have a life! Join us!

Posted by: cooday | October 9, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Its creepy. The now endlessly repeated joke is the one about the reward for their kid for accomplishments 20 years out. I am seeing it everywhere, but it is only an hour old.

==

These guys get emails from Rush or someone telling them what "points" to make each day. It's no wonder they ALL post the exact same god damn things, barely varying the words at all.

When I saw the news that Obama had won the NPP I laughed aloud, long and deep, rattling the lid and scaring the cat, and inspiring the macaws and one of the cockatoos to repeat it.

I knew today would have the wingnuts in apoplexy, and so they are. Hell, the resident dunce can't even put in an appearance, someone is probably standing over him with the pads yelling "Clear!"

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

why are liberals so clueless about how the world really works?

==

spoken by the guy whose outlook on the world was so successful and effective that he landed in a mental institution.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

It was a profound longing for peace that gave us the European Union, and peace has taken hold in Europe for 69 years now

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No, actually that was accomplished as a result of a strong US military presence.

why are liberals so clueless about how the world really works?

Posted by: snowbama | October 9, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Like I said below, I still think there is a screed widget for wing nuts. They say the same things over and over and over.

I (pick one or both)was a Democrat, voted for Obama...but now I see the DemocrapSocialist blah, blah, blah,

Its creepy. The now endlessly repeated joke is the one about the reward for their kid for accomplishments 20 years out. I am seeing it everywhere, but it is only an hour old.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 9, 2009 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Said it before, will say it again, if you are annoyed or angry that the President of the United States of America has received recognition for working towards global peace, then there is something seriously wrong with you..irrespective of party lines, it is a proud day for Americans..if you don't feel proud, then take a good long look in the mirror, you will find that you are not proud of what you see there..

Posted by: ruraledcomm | October 9, 2009 3:35 PM |
___________

Totally co-sign.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 9, 2009 4:01 PM | Report abuse

"History teaches us, however, that a craven longing for peace leads to aggression by less effete powers".

What pompous nonsense. It was a profound longing for peace that gave us the European Union, and peace has taken hold in Europe for 69 years now, to a degree that war of - say - the 1990s Balkan war type is now unthinkable within the EU. There is nothing "airy-fairy" about achieving so firm a peace between bitter enemies like France and Germany (three bloody wars between 1870 and 1945!).
History teaches us time and again that even the bitterest enemies can make lasting peace if their leaders have the courage and vision. I'm no pacifist; it doesn't always work. But true leaders always try.

Posted by: archaeoman | October 9, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

"I voted for Obama and disagree with Republicans about nearly everything, but I cite two critics in particular who I believe were on the money in their comments: Repulican consultant Curt Anderson, who said "It will completely reinforce the notion that he is all flash and no substance, all style, and more popular in Europe than in America" and Wall Street Journal deputy editor Iain Martin who remarked "Think about it...a leader can now win the peace prize for saying that he hopes to bring about peace at some point in the future...He doesn't actually have to do it, he just has to have aspirations. Brilliant." This is going to be a significant distraction from what Obama's administration is attempting to accomplish. The nomination should have been turned down."

******************************************

Show me former winners of the Nobel Peace prize who have actually brought about world peace - can you? NO! It's not the accomplishment so much as the desire, the will and the attempts to do such. Who knows maybe this time .. . . . . . . at least it's something to hope for in this crazy world that we occupy.

Again, I believe he was being recognized for NOT being GWB - that alone gives the world HOPE!

Posted by: Kathy5 | October 9, 2009 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Reading the comments from the wingnuts on here is better than Buddy Hackett. Must be a real lousy day to be a Republican.

Yesterday wasn't so hot either and tomorrow isn't looking too good.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Moron, the Soviet Union's military power collapsed because its economy collapsed. Reagan was idly dreaming about Star Wars and "the end times" when that happened.

If you don't think the same thing could happen here, well we know who is lost in a dream. Our military power derives from our gdp and the value of the dollar (so long as we are in borrowing mode); it has nothing to do with whether or not the President acts nasty, has dementia, or promotes peace.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 9, 2009 3:48 PM | Report abuse

In areas that have suffered severe job losses due to jobs being shipped overseas, this Nobel Prize reinforces the "foreignness" of Obama, and by extension, the Democratic Party.

==

hahahahahaha

what a stupid sentiment that is.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Kudos to the president!! God Bless America!!!

Posted by: brt30 | October 9, 2009 3:45 PM | Report abuse

The Southern White Male Party is
up in arms.....

Very interesting. They cheered
when we weren't awarded the
Olympics and now they are
VERY upset that the POTUS
is given the Nobel Peace Prize.

I can hear the chants now:

USA..USA...US????

Posted by: printthis | October 9, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse

The recognition of the Nobel Peace Prize is well deserved. President Obama's speech today, both humble and full of pride, was a thrilling moment for every patriotic American. Now if the winning of this Prize prompts the president to work even harder to press for resolution of the major conflicts in the Middle East and disarmament then the entire world will benefit.

The wretched negative reactions of the Taliban, al Qeda, Rush Limbaugh, the Republican National committee, and other anti-American groups showcases how much we need Obama to guide other like-minded people to correct the evils in this world.

Posted by: dee5 | October 9, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

The recognition of the Nobel Peace Prize is well deserved. President Obama's speech today, both humble and full of pride, was a thrilling moment for every patriotic American. Now if the winning of this Prize prompts the president to work even harder to press for resolution of the major conflicts in the Middle East and disarmament then the entire world will benefit.

The wretched negative reactions of the Taliban, al Qeda, Rush Limbaugh, the Republican National committee, and other anti-American groups showcases how much we need Obama guide other like-minded people to correct the evils in this world.

Posted by: dee5 | October 9, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Wow, Chris. You need to lay off that Kool-Aid.

I voted for Obama, twice, but this announcement - and his failure to decline it - certainly prompts me to take yet another step back and reevaluate.

Well before the SNL skit, as Obama remained silent all summer about health care reform, I found myself thinking about how little he'd even begun to accomplish.

And now, he's actually accepting awards for doing nothing? Accepting peace prizes while poised to ramp up an increasingly unpopular war in Afghanistan, after having stalled on closing Guantanamo and adopted many of the Bush Admin's reprehensible policies?

This award is a disaster for Obama. He needs to get over himself and start thinking pragmatically about politics, if nothing else.

Posted by: Itzajob | October 9, 2009 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Now we're talking emmet.

Our economic power is on the ropes and we can not compensate for that in any other way than through hard work and fiscal discipline, both at home and in government.

No economic power = no military power (again, unless we want to do the dirty work of the countries willing to buy our debt).

I don't think any emerging power in history has bought the future right out from under their rival. The Chinese people are making tremendous sacrifices to buy their way onto the world stage.

Now, how do we get America working? Where are the jobs? Tax cuts for the rich only made them more rich. How do we see where The Threat to its power lies? Looking in the mirror is really brutal sometimes.

Americans love to tax themselves like libertarians, but when it comes to their own, they are as entitled as any of the euro-socialists. Seen any farmers giving up a subsidy? Medicare recipients in high income brackets saying, no thanks, I can afford to pay for it myself?

Posted by: shrink2 | October 9, 2009 3:39 PM | Report abuse

I think that it's silly to imagine that this faux honor is going to have any bearing on domestic issues (or international, for that matter). Granted, those livng the pipe dream will probably fawn some more (evidenced here), but the majority of Americans who are genuinely and sincerely concerned about the potential impact of his policies and initiatives on their lives, livelihoods (sp?) and families aren't suddenly going to think, "Hey, the Swedes have spoken. NOW I can sleep at night." Wishful thinking by the pipe smokers.

JM

Posted by: JoeMcD | October 9, 2009 3:36 PM | Report abuse

They don't award a peace price for invading a country for its oil.

Posted by: drivl

drivl thinks long and hard all day and finally, through the fog of hate, a thought arrives. step back and admire the luminosity.

Posted by: snowbama | October 9, 2009 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Said it before, will say it again, if you are annoyed or angry that the President of the United States of America has received recognition for working towards global peace, then there is something seriously wrong with you..irrespective of party lines, it is a proud day for Americans..if you don't feel proud, then take a good long look in the mirror, you will find that you are not proud of what you see there..

Posted by: ruraledcomm | October 9, 2009 3:35 PM | Report abuse

As a Democrat turned independent, all I can say is that this Nobel Prize to Obama is a huge gift to the Republicans running for office in 2012. In areas that have suffered severe job losses due to jobs being shipped overseas, this Nobel Prize reinforces the "foreignness" of Obama, and by extension, the Democratic Party. The Nobel Committee may very well have cost the Democrats control of the House and Senate in 2012.

Posted by: spam6 | October 9, 2009 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Funny how those clowns in Norway overlooked Ronald Reagan who brought Peace to over half of Europe by being strong.

I guess they only give the award to weaklings.

Posted by: snowbama | October 9, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

I see the liberal trash has arrived to incite his pornographic agenda.

there will be frantic hate posts with not so clever miasma for the rest of the night.

He amuses himself.

the reason they are so proud is that it gives hope to all do nothings in the world that someday they may be reconized for their unfulfilled potential.

and after all, that is the heart of liberalism, an unfillfilled promise, based on a lie. But since we will never know, the awards pour in. Reminds me of all the jobs Obimbo saved???????

Can you imagine what would have happened if he had just let them go instead?

now an award for all the Peace he saved or created, sometime in the future that is. if we don't get killed in the meantime.

and you said surrender and appeasement had no place in foreign affairs. the enemy is pleased as are the ivory tower bound ninkompoops. hooray, we lose, they win. now come up and get your award.

Posted by: snowbama | October 9, 2009 3:29 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe how wonderful this day has become. My son, who plans to play Little League next spring, was just selected American League MVP for 2029!

Posted by: emmet1 | October 9, 2009 3:29 PM | Report abuse


HEY!!! My neighbor sent the devil a bouquet of roses, an not even an honorable mention. What's going on here?

.

Posted by: Billw3 | October 9, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

shrink2, I don't totally disagree with you. China saves almost half their GDP, while we're spending 10% more than our much larger GDP. The porkulus bill alone dwarfs what we have spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. Cap-and-trade plus a huge new health insurance entitlement will push us into insolvency. A basic rule of life: What can't be sustained won't be sustained.

If we depend on the kindness of strangers, i.e. Russia and China, it won't end well. "American History -- The Tragedy".

Posted by: emmet1 | October 9, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

McCain was able to turn Obama's celebrity against him? How did that work out?

Posted by: nita3 | October 9, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

We attribute Obama's Nobel Peace Prize to his efforts to appease the Russians, none confrontation with Iran and his performance of friendly guy at the U.N.

The recipient of this award is a mockery to awards based on merit and the quest for peace in the tradition of the American people.

==

Yeah the true spirit of American international relations is arrogance and bluster, right. Put American interests before your own or we'll invade your country and hand your head of state over to a lynch mob.

You guys had your shot. You screwed the pooch. You can all go to hell now.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

I've been laughing all day about this. Poor wingnuts!

Posted by: MagicDog1 | October 9, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

I have to share my excitement with the readers of the Fix. My daughter who just started kindergarten has been selected Valedictorian of the Class of 2022. I'm so proud of her I can hardly stand it!

Posted by: emmet1 | October 9, 2009 3:12 PM

---------

She sounds really smart. Ask her to explain to you the criteria for Nobel Peace Prize recipients. She's your daughter, so hopefully she'll be patient with you.

Posted by: ponkey | October 9, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse

If you don't believe peace is possible, then I guess the Peace Prize should be of no importance to you. So why opine on the Nobel committee's choice?

Yes, individual countries have their own agendas and their own alliances. But there are broad areas of agreement, and they will cooperate in those areas, especially when the US drops the "if yer not fer us, you're agin us" attitude.

Posted by: mikenmidland | October 9, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

We attribute Obama's Nobel Peace Prize to his efforts to appease the Russians, none confrontation with Iran and his performance of friendly guy at the U.N.

The recipient of this award is a mockery to awards based on merit and the quest for peace in the tradition of the American people.

The President should do the honorable thing and reject the Peace Award or people will think they give these Awards without any merit to them.

Posted by: klausdmk | October 9, 2009 3:20 PM | Report abuse

I have to share my excitement with the readers of the Fix. My daughter who just started kindergarten has been selected Valedictorian of the Class of 2022. I'm so proud of her I can hardly stand it!

==

Sounds like you guys have all gotten your "phrase of the day" emails.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 3:20 PM | Report abuse

No emmet, no lions lie with lambs, it is just the cold light of dawn coming over the horizon. We forgot to distrust the captains of industry and they looted this country.

Now if we keep blowing money we don't have on attacking everyone that hates us before they attack us we end up being China's Israel, a wholly owned war machine and little else.

China is getting to the point where it can almost control the value of the dollar; if and when the dollar ceases to be the currency of world commodity training all the points you make become moot, we go the way of all the old hegemons.

Today there is no choice but to work with China and Russia. We do not have the economic independence to go it alone.
Other countries have to fight the scourge of failed states and terrorists too (remember Beslan). We get together with emerging powers on the world's battle fronts, we win.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 9, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse


emme11 said:
"My daughter who just started kindergarten has been selected Valedictorian of the Class of 2022."

She might be 'Miss congeniality' and win an even bigger prize...

.

Posted by: Billw3 | October 9, 2009 3:18 PM | Report abuse

I have to share my excitement with the readers of the Fix. My daughter who just started kindergarten has been selected Valedictorian of the Class of 2022. I'm so proud of her I can hardly stand it!

Posted by: emmet1 | October 9, 2009 3:12 PM | Report abuse

What does it mean?

It means America won.

It also means a lot of America-hating Republic Party of No Birthers are going to show up in the emergency wards and die from either apoplexy or heart attacks - which is great, cause that will save us hard-working American citizens a lot of money for the Medicare and Medicaid plans they were on.

It also means no war with Iran.

Posted by: WillSeattle | October 9, 2009 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Obama's air-fairy rhetoric appeals to the naive and to those who deeply hate America. They believe a weakened America will be a boon to world peace, hence Obama's premature Peace Prize. History teaches us, however, that a craven longing for peace leads to aggression by less effete powers, such as those listed above.

==

hahahhahah

I love the phony pedagogical tone. I can almost see you steepling your fingers and you write this crap.

You're not gonna like the next eight years at all.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Anyone got stats on emergency room visits today?

I expect a flood of panic episodes, coronaries, broken metacarpals, and spontaneous miscarriages.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 3:03 PM | Report abuse


retiredzoomie ask:
"I find it interesting that you place little worth in the Nobel Peace Prize. Why is that?"

Billw3 replied:
"op cit Too many people who actually brought peace through years of hard work and sacrifice were left out. Where were Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley, FDR, Churchill, the British people, the American soldier? Sometimes wars have to be fought to bring peace, but those who fight them and sometimes die have not received the Nobel Peace Prize. This shows how much it is worth."

retiredzoomie replied:
"Take the time to read the criteria for award of the Nobel Peace Prize sometime.
You can read it here, straight from Alfred Nobel's will
:http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/short_testamente.html "

You do not respond what I said. I'll further state:

The award is too often awarded to those who aspire and promise great things, NOT to those who actually sacrifice and sometimes die for peace, as noted above.

So what do you think of this?

.

Posted by: Billw3 | October 9, 2009 3:02 PM | Report abuse

This might sound a little off to you emmet1, but the post-WWII system was obsolete. It is over, we won. Now all the "commies" in Africa and South America are re-born as narco or just plain crazy gangs. The Taliban is very much a crazy narco gang too.

So you see, the US, China, India, Brazil and even Russia (incredibly, now helping us with our Afghan effort against the force we built to fight them!) have a common enemy: rogue and failed states and the war lords that thrive on the desperate populations within them.

We get China and Russia to help with Iran, problem erased. We get India, China and Russia to help with Pakistan? Taliban erased. Just relax, sit back and watch the world evolve.


We need a new set of international alliances.

Posted by: shrink2
-------------
That's a pleasant dream. Maybe the way I understand the world is wrong. Maybe the lion will lie with the lamb. Maybe the aggressive will beat their swords into plowshares. I just wouldn't bet on it.

Nations have interests -- always have, always will. Putin considers the fall of the Soviet empire to be the greatest tragedy of the 20th century. He doesn't want to be Robin to our Batman -- he's helping Iran get nukes and he bullied Obama into selling out Eastern Europe.

China sees our fiscal and moral decline and plans to replace us as the world superpower sometime this century -- they take the long view and do NOT buy into the existing international order. They're pouring resources into their military, including a blue water navy.

Iran is rushing to become the first terrorist state with nukes. They plan to dominate the Persian Gulf and its absolutely vital energy supplies. They also plan to give Hamas and Hezbollah a nuclear shield and to wipe Israel off the map.

The Taliban and al Qaeda have us on the run in Afghanistan. A Taliban takeover would give the jihadists the huge victory over the U.S. that would make them once again the "strong horse" and prove that Allah is on their side. Their sense of inevitability would be restored.

Then there's North Korea and Venezuela.

Obama's air-fairy rhetoric appeals to the naive and to those who deeply hate America. They believe a weakened America will be a boon to world peace, hence Obama's premature Peace Prize. History teaches us, however, that a craven longing for peace leads to aggression by less effete powers, such as those listed above.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 9, 2009 3:02 PM | Report abuse

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

I do question the extent to which his efforts are extraordinary. Everything else is obvious. But then everything else could also apply to most democratic heads-of-state.

Posted by: Left_of_the_Pyle | October 9, 2009 3:00 PM | Report abuse

The Norwegians did this to rankle the conservatives and guess what? It worked! This pisses off Beck and Limbaugh EVEN MORE! God, I love Norway!

Posted by: blarsen1 | October 9, 2009 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Frankly, the rest of the world looks upon GOP control of the world's largest military as itself a threat to world peace. No kidding. Before Obama's election, the USA often came first in international polls as the biggest threat to world peace. Not Arabs, not North Koreans, not Iran. Us.

In many minds across the world, therefore, simply defeating the GOP was sufficient grounds for the Peace Prize.

Posted by: nodebris | October 9, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse

"Bet you wouldn't have said that if Bush had won in 2002."

They don't award a peace price for invading a country for its oil.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2009 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Go punch a wall.

or

Gitcher name ont'list fer'nuther box of .223

Posted by: shrink2
-----------------

That was mean.

Posted by: retiredzoomie | October 9, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

retiredzoomie ask:
"I find it interesting that you place little worth in the Nobel Peace Prize. Why is that?"

op cit
"Too many people who actually brought peace through years of hard work and sacrifice were left out. Where were Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley, FDR, Churchill, the British people, the American soldier? Sometimes wars have to be fought to bring peace, but those who fight them and sometimes die have not received the Nobel Peace Prize. This shows how much it is worth.

Posted by: Billw3
-----------

Take the time to read the criteria for award of the Nobel Peace Prize sometime.
You can read it here, straight from Alfred Nobel's will:
http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/short_testamente.html

Posted by: retiredzoomie | October 9, 2009 2:29 PM | Report abuse

the nobel directors won't be voting in the next usa election. dems and rinos are toast.

==

it's okay to cry

go on, let it out

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Go punch a wall.

or

Gitcher name ont'list fer'nuther box of .223

Posted by: shrink2 | October 9, 2009 2:26 PM | Report abuse

As always, the media has to focus on the excitement of the moment. But people facing serious economic problems or international conflicts don't worry about the trivia that excite the media. The Nobel prize is marginally more substantial than the Olympic presentation. But not by much. For scientists, it can make a significant difference in their status and the money is not insignificant. But the President is already way above the prize givers. Particularly, in the world of international affairs, the prize givers have no standing. It is hard to imagine any real world decision being influenced one way or the other because some committee of otherwise powerless prize givers decided to honor the President.

Posted by: dnjake
-----------
LOL

Bet you wouldn't have said that if Bush had won in 2002.

Posted by: retiredzoomie | October 9, 2009 2:26 PM | Report abuse

With the exception of a few writers like Dionne,it's no longer much different than either of those. What I see mostly is standard rightwing talking points. Heads Repubicans win, tails Democrats lose.

==

The fired Dan Froomkin, they've forced Chris to stop doing good reporting and wave pom-poms for the GOP, they carry Krauthammer and Will and pretend they're serious writers ... more like National Enquirer than Washington Times.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

the nobel directors won't be voting in the next usa election. dems and rinos are toast.

Posted by: 12thgenamerican | October 9, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

DwightCollins wrote:
I just heard that obama is going to donate the prize money...
that is not his money...
that money belongs to the United States of America...
why don't the morons at the whitehouse read the constitution...
10/9/2009 2:03:42 PM

Posted by: DwightCollins
--------------

I suggest that you be careful before you call someone a moron. And maybe you should sharpen your comprehension skills.

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution states, with regard to gifts received by a President:

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."

The Nobel Prize is a private gift from a nongovernmental organization.

Posted by: retiredzoomie | October 9, 2009 2:23 PM | Report abuse

monk4hall says that CC is reporting for the right. grohlik says that CC is reporting for the left.

Chris, I'm not sure how you deal with the nasty criticism just for writing about politics. I guess it's an indication of your objectivity if people can't tell if you're "hacking" for the left or for the right.

Posted by: dognabbit | October 9, 2009 2:11 PM
___________

Nice try, pal. The current issue of the Columbia Journalism Review called this site a Drudge "imitator" and "emulator." That's the judgment of the journalism community.

Excerpt:

"Drudge [host of an extreme right wing site that fronted the infamous Ashley Todd racial hoax during the campaign] is in part a victim of his own success. He spawned imitators and emulators, who in turn have only further splintered the media world. If there is an agenda to be set, no one outlet or editor has the power to set it. It’s simply too rapid and unknowable a thing to harness. While The Fix, put together by Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post, and Playbook, put together by Politico’s Mike Allen, are often referred to as Drudge’s heirs, neither has the influence that Drudge once had...."

http://www.cjr.org/feature/drudge_has_lost_his_touch.php?page=3

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 9, 2009 2:23 PM | Report abuse

he's trying to sell out Israel

==

Oh if ONLY this were true

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 2:21 PM | Report abuse


retiredzoomie ask:
"I find it interesting that you place little worth in the Nobel Peace Prize. Why is that?"

op cit
"Too many people who actually brought peace through years of hard work and sacrifice were left out. Where were Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley, FDR, Churchill, the British people, the American soldier? Sometimes wars have to be fought to bring peace, but those who fight them and sometimes die have not received the Nobel Peace Prize. This shows how much it is worth.

.

Posted by: Billw3 | October 9, 2009 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama got the Nobel Prize only because he is black. The consequence is that the Nobel Prize has been devalued, but at least a few corrupt liberal ninnies and children could slap George Bush in the face again.

==

Go punch a wall.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

I expect that JakeD will demand to see the Long Form of the award, befor he will believe it.

==

I "pray" JakeD has a god damn coronary over this.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 2:14 PM | Report abuse

And you know I loves me some objectivity!

Posted by: dognabbit | October 9, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuse

monk4hall says that CC is reporting for the right. grohlik says that CC is reporting for the left.

Chris, I'm not sure how you deal with the nasty criticism just for writing about politics. I guess it's an indication of your objectivity if people can't tell if you're "hacking" for the left or for the right.

Posted by: dognabbit | October 9, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse

DwightCollins wrote:
I just heard that obama is going to donate the prize money...
that is not his money...
that money belongs to the United States of America...
why don't the morons at the whitehouse read the constitution...
10/9/2009 2:03:42 PM

Posted by: DwightCollins | October 9, 2009 2:08 PM | Report abuse

As always, the media has to focus on the excitement of the moment. But people facing serious economic problems or international conflicts don't worry about the trivia that excite the media. The Nobel prize is marginally more substantial than the Olympic presentation. But not by much. For scientists, it can make a significant difference in their status and the money is not insignificant. But the President is already way above the prize givers. Particularly, in the world of international affairs, the prize givers have no standing. It is hard to imagine any real world decision being influenced one way or the other because some committee of otherwise powerless prize givers decided to honor the President.

Posted by: dnjake | October 9, 2009 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Well I know ONE thing this award means .. the gooper trolls are going to be hopping mad all day and just INSUFFERABLE in their screaming that this doesn't mean anything, he didn't deserve it, the Nobel committee has a liberal bias, and so on and so on an' scooby dooby dooooooby.

Choke on it, creeps!

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | October 9, 2009 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Is anyone surprised that the Republicans are so bitterly derisive about Obama's winning the Nobel Peace Prize? It's just the flipside of their joy when the IOC chose Rio, not Chicago for the 2016 Olympics.

No way President John McCain would have won the Peace Prize; he would have invaded SPAIN already!

Posted by: HughBriss | October 9, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuse

joe, it's funny the way the beltway pundits are tryng to spin this -- Bad for Democrats, as usual. Because that's all they think about. They have lost the ability to think about what is Good for America.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2009 1:41 PM
_____________________
And how about the applause from these self-described superpatriots for America NOT getting the Olympics? The suggestion that there is anything bad about 44 winning the Nobel Prize just galls me. Hate is not a family value.

"His winning the Nobel Peace Prize is very bad for Obama politically," said Republican consultant Curt Anderson. "It will completely reinforce the notion that he is all flash and no substance, all style, and more popular in Europe than in America."

Would Katherine Graham have ever allowed this bilge--there's a "downside" to winning the Nobel Prize--to be re-typed in her paper? Ugh. I guess the Pulitzer Prize is pretty bad news, too, huh? BTW, will Pulitzer Prize WINNER Gene Robinson ever "win" a Fix Picks recognition? Just wonderin'.


Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 9, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuse

u all miss the point. after decades of Crusaders, Warmongers, Torturers, Regime Changers, funding of 'Freedom Fighters' [ which caused the blowback from Afghanistan], we finally have a President who has rejected all that crap. no mean feat and a great relief to the world.

Posted by: tedri50 | October 9, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

I think there is a right wing screed writing widget. Drop down menus deliver the cliches with various usage and syntax errors, plus misspelling options together with a random phrase generating system so as to assure incoherence.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 9, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuse

'Good grief, this is the WASHINGTON Post, not the New York Post or the Washington Times.

With the exception of a few writers like Dionne,it's no longer much different than either of those. What I see mostly is standard rightwing talking points. Heads Repubicans win, tails Democrats lose.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama was as surprized this morning as anyone. But he was right to accept it, humbly, as a challenge to continue to work hard for peace around the world.

Posted by: mikenmidland | October 9, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

My opinion is that Chris-bama should have a blog at the DNC or White House with the rest of the Dem party hacks.

Posted by: grohlik | October 9, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

What a piece of TRASH. Once again Cillizza, loudmouth of the GOP just can't get it through his head of oak that Obama represents the leadership the world has been hungering for from America.

By the way, sentence in this article: "Remember that when President Obama was greeted with huge crowds and limitless adoration as he traveled through Europe as a candidate, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was able to turn his international popularity against him, raising questions about whether Obama was ready to stand up for America's interests." is a FALLACY that is so out of the ballpark it might as well be on MARS. McCain TRIED to use his popularity against him, but it didn't work. Imagine, America tuned in to the most international event most Americans ever care about, the Olympics, and there is McCain stomping and demeaning everything about the Olympic spirit. It was truly, one of McCain's first stumbles that coming after the disastrous suspension of his campaign and the Democratic convention CEMENTED the election of Obama.

This is a MAGNIFICENT moment for America, and an extraordinarily rare OPPORTUNITY for a BOOST in American interests on the worldwide stage. But no, Cillizza and his merry band of birthers, want none of that, all they are interested in are their silly spittle and spite games that only make them look petty, mean, and vindictive.

This FIX needs a fix!

Posted by: ethanquern | October 9, 2009 1:18 PM
_________

The funny thing is when Obama was giving his famous message of hope to 250,000 in Germany, Mac couldn't fill up a roadside diner in Dayton. And the 12 folks who showed up were there for the chicken fried steak and apple pie, not Mac. I don't mind the BHO hating--that's the haters' right--I DO mind seeing their nonsense, including false revisionist history, re-typed in the Post, our national political paper of record. Good grief, this is the WASHINGTON Post, not the New York Post or the Washington Times.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 9, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

What a bloody joke,The Joker Barack Obama'
wins the Nobel Prize for Peace,and all the
while Obama allows our own American troops
and our few remaining allies troops to continue to be butchered in Afghanistan and
Iraq. And the Nobel Awards Committee calls
that worthly of the Nobel Prize for Godsake? What Exactly Has This Pathetic
Loser Total Failure Barack Hussein Obama
ever done,in his entire life,except read his not even written by him,phony teleprompter speeches,smile,pose for phony photo ops,jet set all over making apology
tours,and date nights with Michelle? This
has just totally destroyed all meaning and
every remaining bit of creditibility for
the Nobel Prize! Whst A Joke! Pathetic!

Posted by: carleen09 | October 9, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

The prize seems a little premature as the conflicts in Iraq and Afganistan continue with loss of life of allied soldiers and local civilians. If President Obama manages to estabish proper democratic governments in those countries he will really deserve the prize.The Palestine Problem, anarchy in Eritrea and Somalia. human rights abuse in China, especially Tibet and the dictatorship in Burma, all shame the human race. He has a Herculean task.

Posted by: Birkettlondon

------

It's not his job to make the world peaceful by himself.

You'd all do well to read the excerpt from Alfred Nobel's will that establishes the criteria for the Nobel Prizes.

http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/short_testamente.html

Posted by: retiredzoomie | October 9, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

(In truth, Obama's numbers have never seriously lagged in foreign countries; a September "Transatlantic Trends" poll sponsored by the German Marshall fund found that 77 percent of the members of the European Union and Turkey supported the president's handling of international affairs.)
---------
Right, Cilizza. It WASN'T an embarrassment, until hacks like you started reporting Republican talking points swearing it was.

As usual, the reality is something quite different.

Posted by: monk4hall | October 9, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

The prize seems a little premature as the conflicts in Iraq and Afganistan continue with loss of life of allied soldiers and local civilians. If President Obama manages to estabish proper democratic governments in those countries he will really deserve the prize.The Palestine Problem, anarchy in Eritrea and Somalia. human rights abuse in China, especially Tibet and the dictatorship in Burma, all shame the human race. He has a Herculean task.

Posted by: Birkettlondon | October 9, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

The prudent thing for the President's current and future credibility would have been to courteously decline the prize and say that he had not earned it but appreciated the sentiments of the Nobel Committee. This would have shown modesty and wisdom. To accept it, given the no-easy-solutions challenges in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Middle East etc, means allowing his anti-European US critics on the right to set him up for a standard of foreign policy success which he will be very hard pressed to achieve in his first or even second term. The Norwegians have made a politically correct and highly political move here to essentially take a crack at George Bush who damaged America's standing abroad hugely. But they have ended up, with this cheap-shot at Bush, in putting President Obama in an awkward situation where people will say he is indulging in hubris. Politely declining the honor would have been the better course all round. But he has accepted it and will have to accept the consequences. One hopes the consequences will be positive but one does not know.

Posted by: MHCMcDowell | October 9, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

joe, it's funny the way the beltway pundits are tryng to spin this -- Bad for Democrats, as usual. Because that's all they think about. They have lost the ability to think about what is Good for America.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Obama is becoming Jimmy Carter faster than Jimmy Carter became Jimmy Carter.


Obama also awarded Nobel prize in chemistry. "He's just got great chemistry," says Nobel Committee.

It was the Beer Summit that put Obama over the edge.


Yup, still a joke.

Posted by: snowbama | October 9, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

The most popular headline at the Real Clear Politics Web site the other day was: "Is Obama Becoming A Joke?" With brilliant comedic timing, the very next morning the Norwegians gave him the Nobel Peace Prize. Up next: His stunning victory in this year's Miss World contest. Dec. 12, Johannesburg.

Posted by: snowbama

--------------

Want a little cheese with that whine?

Posted by: retiredzoomie | October 9, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse

The most popular headline at the Real Clear Politics Web site the other day was: "Is Obama Becoming A Joke?" With brilliant comedic timing, the very next morning the Norwegians gave him the Nobel Peace Prize. Up next: His stunning victory in this year's Miss World contest. Dec. 12, Johannesburg.

Posted by: snowbama | October 9, 2009 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Totally co-sign, d's post.

The remarkable thing is BHO has turned the ship around despite an opposition party and various media outlets (including, IMO, the blog now known as "Jake's Place") entirely dedicated to attacking his adminstration almost every day, and a WH communication team that's woefully ineffective in either pushing his message or pushing back. BHO is having to personally pitch each of his initiatives, whereas his predecessors had powerful surrogates (e.g., Jim Baker, Bobby Kennedy, Al Gore, Cheney) to stand-in now and then. Again, congrats to BHO and Michelle LaVaughan.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 9, 2009 1:36 PM | Report abuse

face it, snowflake, your girlfriend is political poison. no one wants her to campaign for them. god knows how much damage she could do.

Posted by: drivl

CC_ I thought you were chastising idiots who posted off topic and supplied nothing but hate and insult.

Oh wait, that would entirely eliminate the queen of moonbats. then who would fill up your email box with complaints every morning?

Is it some sort of affirmative action for morons? let us lower our standards so drivl can meet them. we did it for Obimbo.

Posted by: snowbama | October 9, 2009 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Woah, Barack Obama must be a little freaked out right now. How many of us can imagine ourselves receiving this degree of attention? (About 212 degrees Fahrenheit of attention, i.e., boiling hot.)

I support Obama. I want him to improve America's image in the world. But when I heard this morning that he'd won the Nobel Peace Prize, I said, "Really? Doesn't he have a lot more work to do?"

Here in the U.S., we may not fully grasp how much this one man, Obama, has already inspired people around the world, both before his presidency and during.

So while it feels like he was given the award based on what he MIGHT do, perhaps he's being recognized for what he has already done and is continuing to do.

Barack Obama has already made a positive difference in the world. Was he more deserving than others? Man, that's a hot potato.

Posted by: dognabbit | October 9, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

The charmingly illiterate and terribly angry armpit rears his ugly head again:

'So our facist leader Comrade Obama gets the Nobel Peace Prize, big deal.'

do yourself a favor and buy a dictinary. look up 'fascist'. idiots.

Posted by: drindl


drivl spends her time attacking others, contributing nothing to the conversation. then accusing others of that behavior. just plain nutty.

Scientists today bore into the surface of the moon to try to find a shred of evidence that drivl is intelligent, having exhausted all other avenues and coming up empty.

Posted by: snowbama | October 9, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

All these whiners. How sad.

This one's for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8r9lRJ6yHY

Posted by: retiredzoomie | October 9, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abuse

face it, snowflake, your girlfriend is political poison. no one wants her to campaign for them. god knows how much damage she could do.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2009 1:29 PM | Report abuse

This might sound a little off to you emmet1, but the post-WWII system was obsolete. It is over, we won. Now all the "commies" in Africa and South America are re-born as narco or just plain crazy gangs. The Taliban is very much a crazy narco gang too.

So you see, the US, China, India, Brazil and even Russia (incredibly, now helping us with our Afghan effort against the force we built to fight them!) have a common enemy: rogue and failed states and the war lords that thrive on the desperate populations within them.

We get China and Russia to help with Iran, problem erased. We get India, China and Russia to help with Pakistan? Taliban erased. Just relax, sit back and watch the world evolve.


We need a new set of international alliances.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 9, 2009 1:29 PM | Report abuse

As much as the prize is a big vote of confidence in Obama and how he is managing our foreign policy, this is absolutely a slap down of 8 years of George Bush's style of leadership.

The sulky stamping, teeth gnashing and hair pulling from the right is delightful.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | October 9, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

As predicted:

Greater Wingnuttia on High Alert!

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=28013#comments

Posted by: drivl | October 9, 2009 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Notice how the ugly bird begins her traffic in hate as A preemptive strike.

Posted by: snowbama | October 9, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

The charmingly illiterate and terribly angry armpit rears his ugly head again:

'So our facist leader Comrade Obama gets the Nobel Peace Prize, big deal.'

do yourself a favor and buy a dictinary. look up 'fascist'. idiots.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Chris, its clear this was a big middle finger to cheney and the policies of unilteralism and preemptive war. maybe obama didn't deserve but the international community appreciates that we have returned to diplomacy over saber rattling.

Posted by: anarcho-liberal-tarian | October 9, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abuse

"His winning the Nobel Peace Prize is very bad for Obama politically," said Republican consultant Curt Anderson.

===============

Riiiiight. Brilliant political insight there.

Posted by: pdxer | October 9, 2009 1:26 PM | Report abuse

What's the world coming to, when nobody's beating down the door of a lady who couldn't get elected VP and quit her job?

So weird, right?


Posted by: drindl


the voices.

Posted by: snowbama | October 9, 2009 1:22 PM | Report abuse

What a piece of TRASH. Once again Cillizza, loudmouth of the GOP just can't get it through his head of oak that Obama represents the leadership the world has been hungering for from America.

By the way, sentence in this article: "Remember that when President Obama was greeted with huge crowds and limitless adoration as he traveled through Europe as a candidate, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was able to turn his international popularity against him, raising questions about whether Obama was ready to stand up for America's interests." is a FALLACY that is so out of the ballpark it might as well be on MARS. McCain TRIED to use his popularity against him, but it didn't work. Imagine, America tuned in to the most international event most Americans ever care about, the Olympics, and there is McCain stomping and demeaning everything about the Olympic spirit. It was truly, one of McCain's first stumbles that coming after the disastrous suspension of his campaign and the Democratic convention CEMENTED the election of Obama.

This is a MAGNIFICENT moment for America, and an extraordinarily rare OPPORTUNITY for a BOOST in American interests on the worldwide stage. But no, Cillizza and his merry band of birthers, want none of that, all they are interested in are their silly spittle and spite games that only make them look petty, mean, and vindictive.

This FIX needs a fix!

Posted by: ethanquern | October 9, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse

"The political downside of winning the prize? Expect some Republicans -- and, particularly, conservative talk show hosts on television and radio -- to focus on the idea that Obama is such a beloved figure on the world stage because he has essentially capitulated to the demands of the international community."

_________

Come again??? Why transcribe this extremist GOP/hate community talking point in the Post? That those who hate BHO will now hate him more is hardly a "political downside." IMO, Chip Salsman, Audra Shay, Ed Rollins, et al. will never vote for BHO. They will continue to hold out hope for Jim Jeffries and Jess Willard.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 9, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

A previous Peace Prize winner was Mohammed ElBaredei, the IAEA head who covered up Iran's persistent cheating on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. They also honored Yasser Arafat.

The European left sees Obama being pulled in two directions. His national security team is telling him what's necessary to protect America and our allies, and his left wing base and political advisers are pushing him to lose in Afghanistan, to do nothing about Iran, and to act out the airy-fairy, sophomoric rhetoric he displayed at the UN.

The Peace Prize Committee is weighing into our national security debate and rewarding Obama in advance for dismantling America's post-WWII system of world power and alliances. The Peace Prize is a Political Prize.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 9, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

A lot of people are just jealous. The guy won an award, good for him. It's no reason to browbeat him. I guess Obama-haters, American-haters will not stop at anything to put down their president.

Posted by: johnnormansp | October 9, 2009 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Oh no, Obama got the Peace Prize?
Now the American Ammunition Supply Crisis is going to get even worse.

When Randy Weaver was asked why he had over 70,000 rounds of ammo at his cabin on Ruby Ridge, he replied matter of fact, "Well when the government comes for you, you can't just go down to the ammo store now can you?"
Makes sense.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 9, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

emmett1, you don't even know your history, which is sadly typical of people who regard international relations as something like a football game. America's "traditional role" (ie, before 1948) was isolationism and indifference to the world, not maintaining your beloved, and ruinously expensive, empire. The world wants American leadership, not domination, and certainly not the rivers of blood your kind laps up.

Posted by: benjaminanderson | October 9, 2009 1:02 PM | Report abuse

While scanning the reactions to Obama's winning the Nobel, I found one that I agree with completely: that being that the prize was really given to the American people, for having voted into office a man who takes peacemaking seriously, and is willing to do whatever it takes to make the world a place where that is on the minds of all of its people. WE won the award! I am very proud of Nobama, as I am of the Nobel committee....and grateful to them, as well.

Posted by: thomasmurphy55 | October 9, 2009 12:46 PM
_____________
If you are calling our President "nobama," you are a hardly a supporter. And, no, pal, YOU didn't win anything 'cept may the privilege of redeeming your 23 crushed soda cans for cash at the local Piggle Wiggly, and of throwing rocks off highway overpasses. 44's name is on the award; BHO's only the third sitting president to win the honor.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 9, 2009 1:02 PM | Report abuse


NOBEL PANEL TO 'SEVEN DAYS IN MAY' GENERALS AND AGENCY DIRECTORS:

WE ARE ONTO YOU AND THE WORLD IS WATCHING.

Could that be what Obama's winning the Nobel peace prize is REALLY all about?

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA" (see "stories" list)

Posted by: scrivener50 | October 9, 2009 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

You are wrong on at least one count. I am a staunch democrat and am embarrassed by this award. It seems like affirmative action (and I don't mean this just because he is African American) and follows what I see in the US educational system as a prize for a "good try" even if the student is way off the mark. What is the world coming to? Are we all just good at patting ourselves on the back rather than doing the real hard work.

Posted by: Illinoismom

-----

"Affirmative action"? That makes no sense. Does that apply to Martin Luther King's award, too? Or Desmond Tutu's? How about Nelson Mandela's?

Why do you think this is about skin color? Seems to me you may have a problem with that yourself.

When you make the declaration that he is "off the mark", can you elaborate on that?

Posted by: retiredzoomie | October 9, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

retiredzoomie, he sold out the Poles and Czechs, he's trying to sell out Israel, he's acquiescing in Iran becoming a nuclear power, and he will surely pull the plug on Afghanistan.

He denigrates America's traditional role and our history everywhere he goes. He views his election as a transformative moment in world history, and unfortunately he may be right. He's our first anti-American president, and the Euro-trash are applauding.

Posted by: emmet1
-----

Please explain some things for me:

a. How did he "sell out the Czechs and Poles?

b. Define America's "traditional role in the world".

c. Give some tangible examples of his "anti-Americanism".

I've read and heard other stuff all over the place; seems to me you've jumped on some bandwagon.

Posted by: retiredzoomie | October 9, 2009 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

You are wrong on at least one count. I am a staunch democrat and am embarrassed by this award. It seems like affirmative action (and I don't mean this just because he is African American) and follows what I see in the US educational system as a prize for a "good try" even if the student is way off the mark. What is the world coming to? Are we all just good at patting ourselves on the back rather than doing the real hard work.

Posted by: Illinoismom | October 9, 2009 11:02 AM
______________

What? A BHO hate blast on such a special day? Are you from the stormfront/VonBrunn wing of the Democratic Party? If so, good news: I think "Turner Diaries" in paperback may go on sale this week. Just sayin'. Good luck with, er, "the Cause" and finding Jess Willard.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 9, 2009 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Obama's pretty words helped him win the election and impressed many, including the Norwegian judges. However unless he makes concrete acomplishments, the award will be worth less in the future than it already is.

Posted by: Billw3

If you bother to fact check, you'll find that the Prize is given, according to Alfred Nobel, "...to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

I think Obama, as President of the United States, which is still the world's most influential nation, is beginning to do that. The world still looks to positive American leadership to rally behind, and he is a man who other heads of state seem to want to do business with.

I find it interesting that you place little worth in the Nobel Peace Prize. Why is that?

Posted by: retiredzoomie | October 9, 2009 12:54 PM | Report abuse

retiredzoomie, he sold out the Poles and Czechs, he's trying to sell out Israel, he's acquiescing in Iran becoming a nuclear power, and he will surely pull the plug on Afghanistan.

He denigrates America's traditional role and our history everywhere he goes. He views his election as a transformative moment in world history, and unfortunately he may be right. He's our first anti-American president, and the Euro-trash are applauding.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 9, 2009 12:51 PM | Report abuse

emmet1

Hegemons fail because their economies fail, not because they lose their appetite for military adventures. The Russians, Great Britain, Romans, Chinese, so many examples of great historical powers falling to economic decadence.

But little wars do bleed more than people. We borrowed our way through Viet Nam and paid the price during the Carter years. Many historians believe the dozens of "little wars" fought during the Victorian era had a lot to do with the English vulnerability in WW1.

Point is, if the US wants to remain at the center of world peace leadership and we do, we need to get our economy fixed. This means fiscal conservatism, a very concerted effort organized around sustainable growth and no more borrowing from Asia.

The Russians can't project military authority around the world and have to sell space tourism flights to maintain their program because the ruble crashed. It sounds strange, but we better protect the dollar or gas is going to go to $15/gal, way before "peak oil" makes that happen.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 9, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Gotta say it's nice see some love for America making a comeback but it is even more fun watching Wingnuts have a collective meltdown over it. Maybe Glenn Beck will have an aneurysm on Fox and George Will will spontaneously combust on ABC this Sunday. Good times!

Posted by: marSF | October 9, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

emmet1, since you profess to be concerned about America's power, let me remind you of the words of the first Republican President, who came to power at another time of political division: "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Ultimately our strength as a nation comes not from our guns and bombs, but from the People, united in a common bond and bound by our ideals. To me, the greatest threat to our power are those who poison our discourse with fear and hatred and sow division in their wake. You don't have to agree with specific policies, but to viciously mock and root against our President because you lost an election is, ultimately, a deeply unpatriotic act. You have the right to do so, but it also makes it pretty obvious to me that you aren't worried about your country, you're worried about your party. Shame on you.

Posted by: benjaminanderson | October 9, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Lots of posts here from shills parroting the chant "Obama is a leader who has yet to accomplish anything". Really, now? If you are still working or still have your retirement, thank Obama. While the rest of us remember back 8 months ago, when we were headed for the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression, all you can do is criticize.

/*begin sarcasm */
Good job, right wingnut parrots; spread hate and discontent. Keep up the good work. Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, and Faux News will all be very proud of you. Heck, if we get enough people riled up, we might even have some good 'ole fashioned violent riots like the Haymarket riots, and the Everett Massacre, and the other deadly riots in our history.
Be careful, right wingnuts, you just might get what you wish for - yellow dog contracts, 80 hour work weeks, child labor, riots and martial law - all things capitalist - we'll all go back to the 19th century, before Upton Sinclair, when you could make an honest buck in the meat packing industry. Hey; Rush and Glenn, enjoy your hot dogs, and bologna.
/*end sarcasm */

Posted by: the_piano_man | October 9, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Any "analysis" stating or suggesting BHO's winning the Nobel Prize is a negative for him is BHO-hating bigotry in the extreme.
Going beyond the spin of the hatemongers, here's what some of the world leaders had to say about our President receiving this great honor:

""In less than a year in office, he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we live in and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself," Mohamed ElBaradei said. As stated by former Peace Prize winner ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, "[Obama] has shown an unshakeable commitment to diplomacy, mutual respect and dialogue as the best means of resolving conflicts." The Norwegian Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said, "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.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize

Only a fool or a bigot--and this Nobel story has certainly smoked out the folks in those categories--would say that it's a bad thing that our 44th President won the most prestigious award our planet has to offer. Congratulations, Mr. President.

O-Nation

Posted by: broadwayjoe | October 9, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

While scanning the reactions to Obama's winning the Nobel, I found one that I agree with completely: that being that the prize was really given to the American people, for having voted into office a man who takes peacemaking seriously, and is willing to do whatever it takes to make the world a place where that is on the minds of all of its people. WE won the award! I am very proud of Nobama, as I am of the Nobel committee....and grateful to them, as well.

Posted by: thomasmurphy55 | October 9, 2009 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Oh this is too rich. Obama wins the Nobel Peace prize after being in office for only 9 months. What exactly has Obama done in those 9 months to deserve a Nobel prize? Where's the peace? He has gone around the world doing a lot of apologizing. Maybe that's what you have to do. Or maybe it was all that talk about hope and change. You don't really have to change anything and hope that no one notices and they give you a Nobel prize. Too funny. Everyone knows exactly why Obama got the prize. The Europeans love the fact that he's not George Bush. They won't help Obama keep the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons, as a matter of fact they'll conintue to do businesss with them anyway, they won't commit any more troops to Afganistan, they won't increase their own defense budgets so they can pull their own weight in NATO but they will give their good buddy Barak Obama a Nobel Peace prize. Whoo Hoo!

Posted by: RobT1 | October 9, 2009 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Gallenrod, "succeed" at what?. He's being honored for dismantling America's power and ending our traditional role in the world. If you expect that to bring peace, you are a fool. It won't take long to see the calamitous results.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 9, 2009 12:33 PM

----------

America's traditional role in the world is leadership, not dominance. Somewhere along the way, many Americans have lost the ability to distinguish between the two.

Posted by: ponkey | October 9, 2009 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Gallenrod, "succeed" at what?. He's being honored for dismantling America's power and ending our traditional role in the world. If you expect that to bring peace, you are a fool. It won't take long to see the calamitous results.

Posted by: emmet1
---------
LMAO

Talk to me about the peace the world enjoyed prior to the current President's election.

And, for laughs: Tell me about those things the President has single-handedly "dismantled" and have made the world more unstable.

Posted by: retiredzoomie | October 9, 2009 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the clip. He gave a beautiful speech full of acknowledgement and hope.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | October 9, 2009 12:40 PM | Report abuse

I feel like a member of Congress here:

I would like to associate myself with the remarks of my esteemed colleague Gallenod, and thank him for enlightening us.

The comment, while tongue-in-cheek, is meant seriously as well. I think poster Gallenod has provided an adroit summation.

I might add that I sincerely hope those on the right such as the RNC and Rush Limbaugh are proud to be in agreement with Ahmadinejad and Kim Il Jong, son of Kim Il Sung. I am still somewhat amazed that the most prominent voices on the right are so outwardly hateful toward an American President being recognized for inspiring others toward peace and attempting to rebuild and reshape the world's image of the U.S. I suppose those on the right prefer the U.S. to be hated, despised, loathed internationally, and for many residents of other nations to question the sanity of the American people in electing their leaders. The 2004 election results left many throughout the world really questioning the wisdom of the U.S. electorate. By 2006, the U.S. electorate seemed to agree.

Posted by: OHIOCITIZEN | October 9, 2009 12:39 PM | Report abuse


Obama's pretty words helped him win the election and impressed many, including the Norwegian judges. However unless he makes concrete acomplishments, the award will be worth less in the future than it already is.

.

Posted by: Billw3 | October 9, 2009 12:37 PM | Report abuse

armpeg says: "So our facist leader Comrade Obama gets the Nobel Peace Prize, big deal.

Adolph Hitler was nominated for it in 1939.

Joe Stalin was nominated for it in 1945 and 1948.

Bolivian dictator and leader of the Crypt terrorist gang Evo Morales, sitting on death row for killing several people, got it in 2006.
Comrade Barack Hussain Obama is in good company with his like-minded ilk."

LOL I see you forgot to add someone: George W. Bush received a nomination in 2002.

Posted by: retiredzoomie | October 9, 2009 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Gallenrod, "succeed" at what?. He's being honored for dismantling America's power and ending our traditional role in the world. If you expect that to bring peace, you are a fool. It won't take long to see the calamitous results.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 9, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

And to the frantically squittering little toad that calls itself armpeg: have Harvey Weinstein explain some time the difference between being nominated and winning to you, lol. I happen to know that your beloved Shrub was also nominated (what?!? Didn't Rush mention that?!?).

Posted by: benjaminanderson | October 9, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Having listened to the BBC coverage of the prize award, read a fair amount of discussion, and read Obama's acceptance statement, I have come to the following conclusions:

1. The award committee, and much of the rest of the world, see Obama's leadership as the world's best hope for peace.

2. The award committe's decision seems to be based in roughly equal measure on Obama's diplomatic and economic efforts to date and the aspirational/inspirational potential he represents.

3. Obama's acceptance statement hits all the right notes, he takes the honor seriously, and will use the award like a virtual club about the head and shoulders of fringe liberals and conservatives alike.

My earlier opinion, however, still stands. If he lives up to the award, he will likely win it again. If not, it will haunt his legacy.

For the world's sake, you kind of have to hope he succeeds. But there are a number of people who would prefer to watch the world burn than see Obama succeed.

(However, at least the Heritage Foundation, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Club for Growth, and Al-Qaeda, the Republican National Committee, Kim Il Jong and Rush Limbaugh can agree on something.)

Posted by: Gallenod | October 9, 2009 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Payment in advance for not re-enforcing Afghanistan or stopping Iran's nuclear program, and for ending forever America's hegemony.

Euro-trash proudly acknowledging one of their own, the first anti-American President. A worthy successor to earlier Nobel Peace Prize winners such as Yasser Arafat.

A celebration of the post-American era. The fact Obama hasn't done anything is the point.

Posted by: emmet1 | October 9, 2009 12:23 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure I could think of other reasons for giving him the Nobel prize, but here are some reasons. Not putting the missiles in Poland that threatened to escalate the very dangerous antagonism of the Russians. Here's another, scaling back the illegal war in Iraq. And yet another, a President willing to talk to other countries rather than the previous one that acted like a drunken frat boy in his dealings with other countries. How about this one, stopping the illegal rendition of citizens from other countries without legal representation. You Republican wingnuts don't surprise me one bit with your uneducated idiotic hissy fits over him winning.

Posted by: IRemember | October 9, 2009 12:22 PM | Report abuse

It's one thing to have great aspirations and work it....but it's another thing to achieve results

Posted by: ebabin | October 9, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Wow, I had no idea that so many bitter people would rather have a President that is loathed and feared by the world than one that they might look to with a shred of hope that he will help move things in a better direction. Barack Obama had no control over whether he was chosen for this or not. That so many people see this as a "negative" says more about the sad state of our politics here than anything else. First we have Republicans and Wingnuts cheering for Chicago and America's failure to get the Olympics, and now we have a chorus of sour grapes over an American President being .......admired!

Pretty freaking pathetic, folks. You need take a good hard look in the mirror and try to figure out why you are so angry.

Posted by: marSF | October 9, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

I could care less about what the Norwegians think of President Obama, but I do appreciate that they have provided one more opportunity for the irrational haters to reveal themselves as the insecure, but oh-so-self-righteous, gasbags they are. Maybe that was their intention all along. For those regurgitating ill-understood talking points about "appeasement," I would remind you that Norway was occupied by the Nazis, so consider the possibility that they know a thing or two about the dangers of right-wing fanatics. Regards.

Posted by: benjaminanderson | October 9, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

I actually just posted a poll asking people Did Obama Really Deserve To Win The Nobel Peace Prize? Most Have Said No So Far…

Posted by: DaveTeicher | October 9, 2009 12:04 PM

----------

Obama would probably vote 'no' himself judging from his speech. I'd probably vote 'no', too, although I'd like to think that 10 years from now, I'd be able to enthusiastically vote 'yes'. Either way, it's still an honor, both for him and for the country.

Posted by: ponkey | October 9, 2009 12:15 PM | Report abuse

The Nobel Prize to Baraq Obama at this stage of his presidency is definitely a fluke. If not now, at some point of his life, or later when he write his memoirs,
he will definitely admit that he was surprised by the unexpected award, and that he did not really deserve it because he has not achieved anything as of NOW!
He might achieve a lot later, and he may become a historic figure, but at this juncture a Nobel Prize is certainly a cheapening factor to the Prize itself.

Obama should, in my opinion, reject to accept the prize. And if he does, he can probably place himself in the level of people that do accept something of value - if they do not deserve it. And that stance would probably raise his moral and ethical status, because accepting the Prize now would definitely create laughing anecdotes, and derisive jokes for the comedians on a global scale.

Is there any precedent of someone with high ethical standards and moral values that rejected the Nobel Peace Prize because he thought he did not deserve it? Sure. And the best that comes to mind is the rejection of the Nobel Peace Prize by Le Duc Tho in 1973, that he was supposed to share with Henry Kissinger who accepted it. Le Duc Tho was the North Vietnamese negotiator who tried to negotiate peace with Kissinger -then U.S. Secretary of State- in Paris, France. But the negotiations didn't produce any agreement,
or any peace records, and Le Duc Tho thought, therefore, a Peace Prize for a peace that was never reached by negotiations, was NOT DESERVED! Le Duc Tho was launded in Asia for refusing the undeserved peace prize, and the Nobel Prize Henry Kissinger accepted
was ridiculed in many nations as a worthless peace of paper by some pro-Western members of the Peace Prize Committee. There were comments around the globe that time that the Peace Prize was awarded by pro-Western members of the committee to mask the U.S. defeat in the Vietnam war as "a peace negotiated withdrawal!"

I have no doubt that there will be criticism around the globe about the award of the Peace Prize to Obama, and the 1.5 billion Muslims would definitely see the award as a laughable award gesture by Westerners for Westerners for a Peace that is not only non-existent, but also the recipient continues the war against them! Nikos Retsos, retired professor

Posted by: Nikos_Retsos | October 9, 2009 12:14 PM | Report abuse

So our facist leader Comrade Obama gets the Nobel Peace Prize, big deal.

Adolph Hitler was nominated for it in 1939.

Joe Stalin was nominated for it in 1945 and 1948.

Bolivian dictator and leader of the Crypt terrorist gang Evo Morales, sitting on death row for killing several people, got it in 2006.
Comrade Barack Hussain Obama is in good company with his like-minded ilk.

Posted by: armpeg | October 9, 2009 12:14 PM | Report abuse

TO: "kingpidgeon" @ 11:04 a.m.

Your obsession with scrivener50 and his past employers (not blog destinations) is, shall we say, remarkable.

Do you work here? (see link, below). If so, isn't there a better way to use taxpayer resources in your domestic ideological purge conducted under the cover of "keeping America safe"?

Roz Mazer: Alert the DNI.


http://nowpublic.com/world/govt-fusion-center-spying-pretext-harass-and-censor

Posted by: scrivener50 | October 9, 2009 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Dear people of Earth, representatives of the human race: Every day people are dying in the streets and valleys of Iraq, Afganistan, Isreal, West Bank, South American Countries, African Countries, anywhere partisan, religous, and nationalistic politics and power see's fit to rear its ugly head. Can you fel the pain of the people who are dying and thier loved one anguish? Thier are war crime tribunals addressing these issues and war criminals being punished. So why bash anyone politiaclly who is publically admonishing these terrible acts against hunanity and is awarded some measure of attention for trying to stop the pain that we humnas inflict on one another? Is it all about bashing someone because someone else may be more deserving and has not done enough to desrve such an award, or can we just roll with honoring anyone who publically works for peace?

Posted by: mchlkettner | October 9, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

First, congratulations to the President. However, the fact is, I don't know what he did to win it. I don't think you can blame him for winning it. I mean, it doesn't seem to be his fault. Belittling him for winning is like belittle a lottery winner. In as much as I oppose so many of his ideas and policies, I do cringe at the thought that he might accrue some political advantage from his luck.

Posted by: Auburninbp | October 9, 2009 12:07 PM | Report abuse

The joke is on the joker!!!

The Nobel prize will not give Obama a political boost because his winning it is based on hypocrisy.

Obama is going to look like an idiot as Afghanistan, Iraq, Iranian, Israeli-Palestinian, and other international and domestic peace processes continue to fall apart.

If Obama had any shred of human dignity, he would refuse to accept this ill-advised award at this time.

Posted by: mock1ngb1rd | October 9, 2009 12:04 PM | Report abuse

I actually just posted a poll asking people Did Obama Really Deserve To Win The Nobel Peace Prize? Most Have Said No So Far…
http://aerocles.wordpress.com/2009/10/09 /did-obama-deserve-the-nobel-prize-do-y ou-retweet-links-before-clicking-them/

Posted by: DaveTeicher | October 9, 2009 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Contrast President Obama's vision of the future with the vision presented by Bush/Cheney. Obama was granted the NObel Prize for having the audacity to hope for a better future for all of us. ............


http://thefiresidepost.com/2009/10/09/nobel-prize-for-audacity-of-hope/

Posted by: glclark4750 | October 9, 2009 12:00 PM | Report abuse

maddymappo: There aren't as many as you think they are. It's just that the ones who do make so much noise, and do it so often, that most of the rest of us can't get a word in edgewise.

Believe me: You have no idea how many people out there love us and look to us for solutions and inspiration. I've been to an awful lot of places, and not once have I encountered anyone who, upon discovery of my nationality, did not smile and speak of how much they enjoyed their visit to America or how they hoped to someday visit.

We still represent the best of everything to a very large number of people around the world, and most are very happy to be able to be able to believe that we're back on the right track.

Posted by: retiredzoomie | October 9, 2009 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Funny:

Sarah Palin stands ready to stump for the Republican gubernatorial candidates running in the two most closely watched campaigns in the country this fall, but neither seems to want her help.

Less than a month before voters go to the polls, it appears increasingly clear that the former Alaska governor, vice-presidential nominee and conservative favorite will not appear on behalf of either New Jersey’s Chris Christie or Virginia’s Bob McDonnell.


What's the world coming to, when nobody's beating down the door of a lady who couldn't get elected VP and quit her job?

So weird, right?


Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2009 11:56 AM | Report abuse

"Most of what Obama has done will end up making the world a more dangerous place.

Posted by: AngryMobVoter | "

LOL -- but what rationality can you expect from someone who is an 'angry mob'

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2009 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Why do so many Americans hate the world? Why should the world's admiration for the Pres. Obama make Republicans angry and spiteful?

The fact is that President Obama has actually changed the climate of international politics. That is a great achievement considering how Pres. Bush single handedly destroyed all the good will we had with other nations after the 9/11 attack.

Now, the good will is back and we can collectively act with other nations to help prevent nuclear proliferation. Yes that is a stellar achievement.

With Obama there is hope - and hope was the only treasure of humanity that did not escape from Pandora's box.

Posted by: maddymappo | October 9, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

AngryMobVoter: "Most of what Obama has done will end up making the world a more dangerous place."
...
For example?

Posted by: retiredzoomie | October 9, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

And you are half right: thanks to Obamappeasment, we are not as feared as we used to be. Is that a good thing in your mind?

Posted by: tocono68 | October 9, 2009 11:44 AM

----------

Yeah, see, you're exactly the kind of person Nobel wasn't thinking about when he established this prize. If you want to start up the tocono68 Global Domination Prize for Inspiring International Fear, then nobody's stopping you, and you'll get to award it to whomever you'd like.

Posted by: ponkey | October 9, 2009 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Most of what Obama has done will end up making the world a more dangerous place.

Posted by: AngryMobVoter | October 9, 2009 11:49 AM | Report abuse

For tocono68: I've been to a lot of countries for a good bit of time and have lived in several. Tell me where "throughout the world" we're hated...

Posted by: retiredzoomie | October 9, 2009 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Barack Obama got the Nobel Prize only because he is black. The consequence is that the Nobel Prize has been devalued, but at least a few corrupt liberal ninnies and children could slap George Bush in the face again.

Posted by: mock1ngb1rd | October 9, 2009 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Where's my Nobel Physics Prize? I intend to invent faster-than-light travel. I've been robbed.

Posted by: vidkunquisling | October 9, 2009 11:46 AM | Report abuse

The award effectively insults President Obama and the United States. Clearly, he's done nothing to deserve the award, but by giving it to him now, it effectively precludes him from potentially receiving the award for what he may actually do. Whether you love or despise Obama, he is president of the United States and deserves an equal chance to succeed or fail based on what occurs during his administration. Giving him the Nobel Peace Prize for good intentions and minor actions deprives him of his chance in history to be judged by what he does or does not do.

Obama deserved more respect from the Europeans. Defining his beginning actions as success demeans the President.

Posted by: tmtfairfax | October 9, 2009 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Voiceofreason5:

Have you really been "the world over" in the past 9 months to witness this "rebuilt bridge" of which you speak?

Believe me when I say that we are still hated throughout the world; it's not because of our president- be it Bush or Obama- but because of our permissive lifestyle, and our unwillingness to succumb to religious fanaticsm. That's all. We may not be hated as much in Europe anymore, but that may be because we now have a prez who will adopt their socialist ideals. And you are half right: thanks to Obamappeasment, we are not as feared as we used to be. Is that a good thing in your mind?

Posted by: tocono68 | October 9, 2009 11:44 AM | Report abuse

His being in office 12 days when the deadline for Nobel consideration makes this seem an exceptionally hollow victory. I find it hard to believe there isn't a single other person on this planet who wasn't more deserving.

Posted by: keith_a_anyon | October 9, 2009 11:44 AM | Report abuse

A black man getting elected to be the POTUS is accomplishment enough worthy of a Nobel peace prize.

Posted by: bekaarho | October 9, 2009 11:41 AM | Report abuse

The Nobel Prize for Peace should be awarded, according to Alfred Nobel's wish: "...to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses..."

http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/short_testamente.html

For me, the prize is a simple acknowledgment of the importance of American leadership. Perhaps the President is receiving it as the leader of the nation whose influence can do the most to promote or undermine the goals spelled out by Nobel.

Posted by: retiredzoomie | October 9, 2009 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Nice prize! Where's the peace? I think Miss Congeniality has done more for world peace than Mr. Obama. And it's like totally ironic this prize was announced just hours after the U.S. bombed the moon.

Posted by: Poppy6 | October 9, 2009 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Has the Repubilcan Party officially joined the Taliban now?

"Among the critics over President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize? The Taliban.

Spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid tells the AFP, "We condemn the award of the Noble Peace Prize for Obama."

More:

"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 institute's awarding him the peace prize. We condemn this year's peace prize as unjust."

Mujahid's comments came via telephone "from an undisclosed location."

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2009 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Not that I want to take anything away from Mr. Obama, But I think this is a direct (and not undeserved) slap in the face for George Bush. After 8 years of causing chaos here and around the world, to give your successor the Nobel Piece Prize in just months, is an international "up Yours".

Posted by: js62 | October 9, 2009 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Our President will surely share this great honor with the American people who supported this dramatic change in U.S. Foreign policy. Once again, our nation represents hope for a better future.

Posted by: johncav | October 9, 2009 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Dr. Meacham is chosen along with others by the inhabitants of the planet Metaluna to do research that will help save their dying planet. However, an evil scheme is uncovered by the suspecting Dr. Meacham when he discovers the Metalunan's plan to take over Earth. Dr. Meacham then escapes an exploding Metalunan built Earth lab along with Dr. Adams only to be kidnapped while flying away in a small plane. A flying saucer wisks both the scientists off to Metaluna where they are held accountable for blowing up the Metalunan Earth lab during their escape. They later escape there with the help of Exeter the friendly Metalunan. Metaluna then self destructs and the Doctors make it safely back to Earth, which is saved from Metalunan invasion. Dr Meacham should have one the Nobel Peace Price for at least assembling the Interocitor. (From:This Island Earth 1955)
www.cliffyworld.com

Posted by: Cliffyworld | October 9, 2009 11:35 AM | Report abuse

The President wins the most prestigious award the world has to offer and all you can think of is politics. Talk about petty. This piece is the very definition of petty. First he is an embarrassment to mankind when Brazil is chosen over the United States to host the games. Now he gets blasted for being recognized by the international community. The major problem with any party-liner is the only object seen is anger and hatred for any one or thing that dares to not agree with them. People like this must not have many real friends just political allies. Any way I digress so CONGRATULATIONS to PRESIDENT OBAMA true men of peace are called a child of God.

Posted by: ervinfoulk | October 9, 2009 11:35 AM | Report abuse

I expect that JakeD will demand to see the Long Form of the award, befor he will believe it.

Posted by: sourpuss | October 9, 2009 11:35 AM | Report abuse

First let me say I am not a Republican or Democrat, I am independant, and I am neither Liberal nor Conservative, but a Moderate. So this statement will be from neither view point, but my own.

Obama's win, is much like Gore's, in that is was not deserved. It was in fact a "Give-me" award that has no merrit and makes a joke of this award.
Obama has a long history of doing nothing, and his actions in office show exactly that, no experience, no skills, no ability to run anything. His meeting with the Israelies and Palistines, agravated both sides, and brought neither any closer (stated by reps from both sides), his dealings with the Russians were laughed at, and you could tell by Putin's posture when talking to Obama on camera, a total lack of respect, more than any other President. Obama's effort to get the Olympics in Chicago, brought them to be the first dumped, quickly.
Terrorist activity has actuaslly increased since Obama took over, showing their lack of fear for the conman. Obama has only done one thing in office, and that is drop the respect from amny countries towards the US. Allies are less respectful of us, and enemies are less afraid of us with Obama in office. This has nothing to do with color, indeed there are a few Blacks I know of that could have done far better than Obama, and likely more I don't know of, but we got stuck with a noted Con-man for a President. Yes France has become more friendly towards us, but friendship with France has always been like friendship with a viper, so that is not much to award him with.
In Office, Obama has done more to divide this country than any President in the past, and in such a short time.
He does not deserve this award, in any way.

Posted by: dakwamyth | October 9, 2009 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Thank you all for your kind postings. You will each be receiving a Nobel Peace Prize in the mail absolutely free.

Does not include shipping and handling.

Posted by: lonemoderate | October 9, 2009 11:30 AM | Report abuse

how does he win when we are at "war"

Posted by: derhard101 | October 9, 2009 11:30 AM | Report abuse

how does he win when we are at "war"

Posted by: derhard101 | October 9, 2009 11:30 AM | Report abuse

how does he win when we are at "war"

Posted by: derhard101 | October 9, 2009 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Greater Wingnuttia on High Alert!

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=28013#comments

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2009 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Notice how the ugly bird begins her traffic in hate as A preemptive strike.

She will spend most of the day whining about posters who are not members of her liberal mutual admiration society.

No actual contribution to the blog. Just hate and spite. The voices in her head make it hard to even stay on topic.

Posted by: snowbama | October 9, 2009 11:29 AM | Report abuse

I am a big Obama supporter, but even I am left scratching my head on this choice. Seems a bit premature...

But, at least he did get that much-ballyhooed
"3 AM phone call".

Posted by: we-the-people | October 9, 2009 11:28 AM | Report abuse

".... restore his image as a respected player on the world stage in the eyes of the international community."

When WAS he a respected player on said stage?

Posted by: sh801 | October 9, 2009 11:28 AM | Report abuse

The Nobel Peace Prize has been a joke since they handed it to Hank Kissinger. This simply makes the prize look as empty of significance as it is, and as political as it has always been...if they had one for Tax Code Accomplishments, they would give it to Chuck Rangel I suppose...

Posted by: Vermeer14331 | October 9, 2009 11:27 AM | Report abuse

President Obama is a wise man; I hope he chooses to decline the award. As a lifelong democrat and Obama fan. THIS AWARD AINT RIGHT.

Posted by: henhen11417 | October 9, 2009 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Whatever happened to Americans being proud of their country, their leader despite his party, and for honors bestowed upon us? I really think the GOP and all the screed-spewers on here could give it a rest for a least one day because it not only makes you look petulant but unpatriotic as well.

Congrats President Obama!

Posted by: dre7861 | October 9, 2009 11:25 AM | Report abuse

It is too early for him to have earned the Nobel since he hasn't accomplished much since he has been on the job. This makes me suspect the prize as just another manipulative political trick to mesmerize the people. The Right Wingers are going to have fun with this.

Posted by: DL13 | October 9, 2009 11:25 AM | Report abuse

snobama,
you keep believing it's just the left that adores him.
It's also every single human in the whole world outside of America, the majority of the people inside America, and most of the people in the 4th dimension.
Plus puppies and kittens, and trees, grass, water...even the air you are breathing RIGHT NOW loves Obama.
Maybe you should stop breathing...or are you a socialist?

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | October 9, 2009 11:24 AM | Report abuse

I voted for Obama and disagree with Republicans about nearly everything, but I cite two critics in particular who I believe were on the money in their comments: Repulican consultant Curt Anderson, who said "It will completely reinforce the notion that he is all flash and no substance, all style, and more popular in Europe than in America" and Wall Street Journal deputy editor Iain Martin who remarked "Think about it...a leader can now win the peace prize for saying that he hopes to bring about peace at some point in the future...He doesn't actually have to do it, he just has to have aspirations. Brilliant." This is going to be a significant distraction from what Obama's administration is attempting to accomplish. The nomination should have been turned down.

Posted by: shehermit | October 9, 2009 11:24 AM | Report abuse

At the end of the day, the Peace Prize is a win for the United States. When our country is held in high regard internationally, it is much easier for us to show leadership in the world. Given, for example, the North Korean and Iranian desire to obtain a nuclear arsenal, we need all of the help we can get and a policy that does more than increase the volume of empty threats (a la Ambassador Bolton and Dick Cheney).

The President's political opposition are no more opposed to the President today than they were yesterday and when, in the near future, everyone has stopped talking about the Peace Prize, they will still be opposed to him. But maybe, just maybe, when we pick up the telephone and ask another country for a huge favor, they will at least take the phone call.

I appreciate the Peace Prize committee's action recognizing that the President of the United States has, unlike Mr. Bush, made an effort to work with the intenational community -- especially our traditional allies -- instead of against them. We will not always agree with them, but we can disagree without coming across as childish cowboys.

In the meantime, the G.O.P. can continue to insult cheese.

Posted by: craigmcneiljd | October 9, 2009 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Obviously the world and former Noble Peace Prize recipients think President Obama deserves this honor, even though the Taliban, Hamas, and Republican hate/fearmongers do not.

Why do some Americans think so little of our President? Why do they try to diminish each and every accomplishment he makes and turn it into a negative?

We should be thankful that the world is looking at America in a better light this year.

If you, as an American, can't be proud of what the rest of the world thinks of your President, at least have the courtesy of keeping your negative opinions to yourself.

Posted by: gregschmitt31 | October 9, 2009 11:23 AM | Report abuse

so he got the nobel preace prize for being black ????

Posted by: tru-indy | October 9, 2009 11:22 AM | Report abuse

To those that don't think he deserves this award, this should show you just how reviled we were, worldwide, under George W. Bush.

Patching up relations with the rest of the world was a herculean task that definitely earned him the peace prize. This was also a vote of confidence from the nations of the world, and we should all be thankful for that.

He's done more to make us safer in 9 months than Bush did in 8 years, through diplomacy rather than saber-rattling. I think he's doing great on foreign policy... now if he can just refocus on domestic policy and stop kowtowing to Republicans, he'll get a perfect score from me.

Posted by: fido5150 | October 9, 2009 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Spoke too soon, it's ruined for the rest of the day now.

Watch for the snowflake blog clog, folks.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2009 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Notice how much nicer than the comments section is, CC, before the two trolls get here?

This is what everyone keeps trying to tell you. When they are not here to torpedo the discussion, you get lots of sane new commenters.

I see you noted it, shrink.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2009 11:19 AM | Report abuse

I think this says more about the prize, it is hopelessly polticized.

But there is room for concern. How is it that everything is a surprise for these clowns? Is being in the company of gore and Carter a good thing? Can barrys supersized ego without any according feats, get any more grandiose?

The obvious point that the left adores him despite a single accomplishment is becoming entrenched.

Posted by: snowbama | October 9, 2009 11:19 AM | Report abuse

I think this says more about the prize, it is hopelessly polticized.

But there is room for concern. How is it that everything is a surprise for these clowns? Is being in the company of gore and Carter a good thing? Can barrys supersized ego without any according feats, get any more grandiose?

The obvious point that the left adores him despite a single accomplishment is becoming entrenched.

Posted by: snowbama | October 9, 2009 11:17 AM | Report abuse

kingpigeon- 1
scrivener50- nothin'
ZING!

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | October 9, 2009 11:17 AM | Report abuse

I protest. My mother should have been named a co-recipient for her voice in wanting global peace.
And not just her. Billions of other women who speak the same way should also have been named.
Since he hasn't spoken any better -- if as well -- awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama was plain wrong, and I agree with others who have commented on this that the decision had come way too soon, before he had made any concrete foreign policy achievement.

Rudy Haugeneder
Victoria, BC, Canada

Posted by: Rudy7 | October 9, 2009 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Sign a petition now - nobelpeace.eu !

Posted by: podpiszmy | October 9, 2009 11:10 AM | Report abuse

I just wanted to take a moment to thank scrivener50 for interrupting the discussion about Obama's Nobel Peace Prize with a welcome non sequitur about the NASA "moon bombing", followed by a few conspiracy theories regarding government surveillance. All too often threads of comments posted under articles have the annoying tendency to slavishly stick to the topic at hand, presumably because the average person would like for comments to relate to the article they have just finished reading. But you, scrivener50, know better, and recognize that the average Washington Post reader wants to encounter a wide variety of subject matter when they read comments.

I like how you attempted to create a segue from the topic at hand into your rambling NASA conspiracy with the clever, "Hey... winning the Nobel Peace Prize isn't rocket science! Speaking of which..." Very clever!

I also took the time to visit your website; it was obviously very important to you that I do this since you posted a URL in your comments. I see that you have a journalism resume on the front page consisting of a stream of locations where you post comments. I was impressed by how busy you are posting comments to other sites. I see that you often post the same articles to multiple locations, which is an efficient way to post lots and lots of comments. I also see that you comment a lot on your own stories. One should always be one's own biggest fan, because only by loving yourself first can others learn to love you.

Thank you scrivener50.

Posted by: kingpigeon | October 9, 2009 11:04 AM | Report abuse

It is always funny to read comments from those who have not accomplished much in their lives, have never won any prizes, criticize those have. There is a name for those kind of people, LOSERS.

Posted by: nickcoza | October 9, 2009 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

You are wrong on at least one count. I am a staunch democrat and am embarrassed by this award. It seems like affirmative action (and I don't mean this just because he is African American) and follows what I see in the US educational system as a prize for a "good try" even if the student is way off the mark. What is the world coming to? Are we all just good at patting ourselves on the back rather than doing the real hard work.

Posted by: Illinoismom | October 9, 2009 11:02 AM | Report abuse

I'd just like to congratulate Cris Cillizza on the smartest most coherent string of The Fix comments we have seen in some months.
Real ideas in real time here, way ahead of the pundits, what a blog should be.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 9, 2009 11:01 AM | Report abuse

"I bee-in a Conserbative I ain't fer Obambi winnin no No Bell prize. He is fer death panels fer old folks and he want youth in asia fer dead peepels"

Posted by: hayden1 | October 9, 2009 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Amazing that the Republican Party, in fact the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, has already denounced the President for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. I suppose this adds credence to Chris' point that at least some conservatives will attack the U.S.President for this. Of course that does not signify any validity to their criticisms.

Why is it today that so many Republicans seem to have their intellectual and social development stunted at such an early age? The Republican Party was not always this way. The party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, and even Dwight Eisenhower, has basically ceased to exist.

Posted by: OHIOCITIZEN | October 9, 2009 10:58 AM | Report abuse

I haven't been exactly happy with Obama on domestic issues yet, but I think this award is wonderful.

The one thing Obama has achieved (which SNL forgot) is that we are no longer hated and feared the world over. This DOES matter because we will be able to get the support we need on serious international issues. Bush/Cheney squandered our international standing completely, which left us stranded.

No matter what the GOP spews, we cannot go it alone in this Global Economy and succeed. Obama has rebuilt America's bridge to the rest of the world.

Congratulations, Obama.

Posted by: VoiceofReason5 | October 9, 2009 10:54 AM | Report abuse

I fail to understand how any negatives accrue from winning a prestigious international award like the Nobel Peace Prize. Perhaps the positives are limited in scope, but there should be no negatives.

If anything, for those who supported Obama's candidacy and election precisely because they hoped he would be able to reshape the U.S. image in the world but who may have wavered in support since, this is likely to reinforce that initial support. That may be a relatively small slice of the electorate, perhaps 3-5 %, but it may be a sufficiently large slice to be electorally meaningful.

Posted by: OHIOCITIZEN | October 9, 2009 10:51 AM | Report abuse

90 years in the making! Another sitting POTUS gets the Nobel Peace Prize!

Considering the finances of the sitting president are frozen: Obama would be wise to take the equivalent $1.4 MIL prize money in Euros and let it gain another 7 years of interest in a European bank account.

When I first heard about this I had a WTF?!? Moment. But reading the comments made by the committee who chooses the winner:

“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?”

I can;t help but agree. Who this year has been more deserving?

So the committee could justify granting Obama this honor; so only question I'm concerned about is:

How do you give the Peace Prize to a War-Time President who is currently overseeing two wars? Should they have held off until he honestly begins to scale down both of those war efforst?

Or is that when President Obama makes history anew by becoming the first Two-Time Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize?!?!

Posted by: mcgrupp10799 | October 9, 2009 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Krauthammer and Will

I know! I just can't wait!
But right now they are too busy trying to get their Xanax and Bistolic prescriptions refilled early.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 9, 2009 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Chris, when you say that McCain was able to turn his international superstardom against him, you are wrong. They attempted to make it a negative, but it was actually a positive that because of BHO, America's image was seen as diplomatic, strong, and vital. There is no weakness seen by anyone but pure enemies, both international and domestic.

Posted by: katem1 | October 9, 2009 10:47 AM | Report abuse

You don't have to be an Obama detractor to think awarding him the Nobel prize is strange and a little discomforting. The announcement even caught the White House off guard. This was definitely a slap in the face of the Bush administration and has very little to do with anything Obama has done outside of getting elected. One just needs to read to disjoined statement from Oslo to see that. I don't see any political boost for the award because it isn't based on any actual performance or accomplishment. Just look at our unemployment rate. FYI-- the bank bailouts were implemented under Bush and was the starting point to stemming the decline of the markets (for good or bad this must be acknowleged to have a serious discussion).

Just one unblinded Democrat's point of view.

Posted by: kristilj | October 9, 2009 10:46 AM | Report abuse

First 9 months of Bush: 911

First 9 months of Obama: Nobel Peace Prize

We report, you decide.

Posted by: rs12 | October 9, 2009 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Why would it be illegal to accept the prize money? I think it would be a decent gesture to donate the prize money, but presidents are allowed to have outside income.

I like the idea of this being aspirational. In some sense, that's exactly what the election was. I expect Krauthammer and Will to go into hissy fits over this.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 9, 2009 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Can I get an "empty suit" or a "Chicago style"?

Posted by: shrink2 | October 9, 2009 10:37 AM | Report abuse

should be 'here' presumably

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2009 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Pupster and Jaxas, great thoughts.

Posted by: johnkomalley | October 9, 2009 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Can we have a drinking game hear today for all the rightwing buzzwords contained in the Conservadictionary? We've already got 'appeasement' and 'teleprompter' and it's still early. We'll probably get repeats of all two dozen before the day's hissy fit is over.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2009 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Agreed, the next question is whether or not he should turn it down. As our war adventures grind on, risking leaving a situation that rivals Cambodia in '70s: scary times. Many of us over here on the Left have never gotten over Henry Kissinger accepting this prize, even as Le Duc Tho declined it.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 9, 2009 10:33 AM | Report abuse

As much as I admire President Obama's great qualities--and he has many of them, detractors--I basically agree with 'FairlingtonBlade's' assessment.

The Nobel Peace Prize has become very politicised in recent years, it's true. Yet without, I hope, seeming like a pollyanna, perhaps it was given aspirationally?

I do agree that it would have had greater meaning if it had been awarded after the fact, rather than prematurely.

Posted by: sverigegrabb | October 9, 2009 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Wow. Very exciting stuff. The Nobel Prize for Good Intentions.
I hope he takes some of the prize money to buy an upgraded traveling case for his TelePrompter, since talking and speechifying (for the present) is all he has to show in the accomplishments column to date, and TOTUS deserves some credit for that.
Maybe he'll have real results to show in the future, giving him another Nobel opportunity for further world stage adulation.
I have to leave now to bring a change of clothes to my kids school, so they can record a new Song of Praise Video for our Dear Leader.

Posted by: dbsinOakRidge | October 9, 2009 10:32 AM | Report abuse

I can't understand it. Why is it that no matter WHAT President Obama does, he is subject to endless ridicules and snark comments especially from the right wing nuts. They were probably more comfortable living under the clueless administration, than under a President who can inspire and speak eloquently. No wonder their choice of possible leaders are such luminaries as Palin and Jindal.

Posted by: Bangkokian | October 9, 2009 10:27 AM | Report abuse

I support Obama but this prize will be no political prize for him. The Nobel Peace Prize should be given for accomplishments, not efforts. The prize will not give him a boost, it already has the taint of weirdness.

Sentiment among Britons who are pro-Obama is already overwhelmingly negative. He is going to look like a fool as Afghanistan drags on, as Iraq becomes shaky, as the Israeli-Palestinian process blows up.

He would get far more political mileage by turning down the prize until "my administrative team accomplishes some of the goals of the people of the United States for peace in the world."

Posted by: Citizen0 | October 9, 2009 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Jeepers, how embarrassing for Obama to be given such a blatantly political prize.

Don't the Norwegians know that President Obama is in danger of being turned into a comedy punchline for lack of accomplishment? Seriosly, this thing puts him in pretty deep trouble.

Posted by: ZZim | October 9, 2009 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Jeepers, how embarrassing for Obama to be given such a blatantly political prize.

Don't the Norwegians know that President Obama is in danger of being turned into a comedy punchline for lack of accomplishment? Seriosly, this thing puts him in pretty deep trouble.

Posted by: ZZim | October 9, 2009 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Josh Marshall's take on this I think is interesting:

"This is an odd award. You'd expect it to come later in Obama's presidency and tied to some particular event or accomplishment. But the unmistakable message of the award is one of the consequences of a period in which the most powerful country in the world, the 'hyper-power' as the French have it, became the focus of destabilization and in real if limited ways lawlessness.

A harsh judgment, yes. But a dark period. And Obama has begun, if fitfully and very imperfectly to many of his supporters, to steer the ship of state in a different direction. If that seems like a meager accomplishment to many of the usual Washington types it's a profound reflection of their own enablement of the Bush era and how compromised they are by it, how much they perpetuated the belief that it was 'normal history' rather than dark aberration"

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2009 10:18 AM | Report abuse

I presume this gift will go to the general fund of the United States since it would be illegal for the President to accept it for his own account.

Posted by: magellan1 | October 9, 2009 10:18 AM | Report abuse

threadjack -- any comment, Chris, about the internal warfare going on between Rubio in FL and NRSC?

Late this afternoon, NRSC communications director Brian Walsh responded to Marco Rubio's claim today that national Republicans are shrill and lazy. The NRSC has publicly endorsed Rubio's opponent in the Florida senate race, Gov. Charlie Crist (R), and it's fair to say Rubio's take on the tone in D.C. was aimed squarely at many of the group's senior leadership.

Walsh sniffs,

"I'm going to decline to comment. If Marco think[s] it's useful to spend time attacking fellow Republicans that's his decision. "

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2009 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Some may make fun of the prize but look at how the rest of the world reacts. This prize counts. The world is a large place and I for one am pround our president won such a prestigious award.

Posted by: Thinking4 | October 9, 2009 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Some may make fun of the prize but look at how the rest of the world reacts. This prize counts. The world is a large place and I for one am pround our president won such a prestigious award.

Posted by: Thinking4 | October 9, 2009 10:13 AM | Report abuse

"...the gleeful dancing in the street of all of those shamelessly partisan and disloyal right wing traitors over an American President losing an Olympic pitch. I don't think the majority of Americans--or even republicans will easily forgive them for that."

jaxas, every day I make a promise to battle America's right wing traitors. The Peace Prize may be about placing "crosses on the barbed wire"*, but that is better than the work of the psychopaths driving America's ammunition shortage.

[*Paul Simon]

Posted by: shrink2 | October 9, 2009 10:09 AM | Report abuse

I knew we'd get to 'appeaement' in this thread somewhere. It's one of the more widely used terms in the Conservadictionary. Of course, it only contains about two dozen words.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2009 10:05 AM | Report abuse

1) Premature.

2) Probably evens out the Olympics trip.

3) A definite slap at the Bush administration.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 9, 2009 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Hey... winning the Nobel Peace Prize isn't rocket science!

Speaking of which, at least it deflected attention from THIS:

MOON BOMBING: MORE FIZZLE THAN SIZZLE?


UPDATE, Friday morning, Oct. 9, 9:45 a.m. -- The Moon bombing apparently came off with a fizzle, not a bang. As network anchors watched and waited breathlessly, the grainy images from NASA -- live video taken from the orbiting module and an infrared camera image -- showed absolutely nothing. No six-mile debris plume spewing from the Moon's surface. No infrared signs of a steamy impact. Nothing. Nada.

NASA cameras quickly switched to a control room scene, with mission commanders and minions doing the requisite hand shakes and back-slapping. The space agency declared the mission a success -- and there was no more talk by the TV anchors of the fly-by telemetry that was supposed to reveal whether the probe actually resulted in the release of ice crystals. Attention quickly turned to the surprise announcement that President Obama had won the Nobel peace prize.

So what happened up there on the Moon this morning? Does a major government agency advertise as its coming attraction a six-mile-high debris plume and then get away with saying, "Never mind?" Or, is it possible that a weapons testing phase of the mission was shut down over belated concerns that the debris raised by an intense impact could create rings around the moon, a debris field that would endanger future missions?

Did the mission fail, resulting in no major impact at all? Or is "success" being redefined as something less than promised?

At this point, it apparently depends on who and what you choose to believe; we await the release by NASA of scientific data that confirms the mission's success or failure.

Remember, the American public was lied to and never told by NASA about that '60s-era manned spy lab, a military mission disguised as a civilian space shot. So the possibility that this Moon bombing was an aborted weapons test cannot be ruled out. As they say, you can't prove a negative, especially if a civilian space agency is used as cover to pursue the national security goal of the weaponization of space.

***

U.S. GOVERNMENT DEPLOYS SILENT, CLASSIFIED MICROWAVE/LASER DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS SYSTEMS AGAINST 'TARGETED' U.S. CITIZENS

• Electromagnetic assaults, vigilante warrantless GPS "community stalking" violate human and civil rights of thousands of unjustly targeted Americans nationwide...

...an American "slow-kill" genocide hiding in plain sight, a "multi-agency coordinated action program" under the apparent direction of a secretive Homeland Security agency.

WHEN WILL TEAM OBAMA WAKE UP AND SMELL THE POLICE STATE... AND WHAT LOOKS LIKE AN INCIPIENT MILITARY/SECURITY COUP D'ETAT?

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE "GESTAPO USA" (see "stories").

Posted by: scrivener50 | October 9, 2009 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Ironically, the main domestic political impact of the award may be to cement the left wing of the Democratic party's disdain for the president.

Mocking a sitting president of their own party for winning the Nobel Peace Prize, as I believe most of them will, puts them in a position they're unlikely to walk back from.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | October 9, 2009 10:00 AM | Report abuse

The Peace Prize has long been used to award people for work that they are currently doing, and to increase awaremeness of a given issue. Doctors without Borders for example got a huge boost when they won the Nobel.
When Aung San won it shed a tremendous amount of light on the situation in Burma so that may be what they were trying to do by giving it to Obama.
In addition if that is their goal then hopefully it will give Obama and the administration a new jolt in the arm in the negotiations with Iran, and the agreement that is being hammered out between Syria and Isreal.

Though in my opinion as long as Nelson Mandela is still alive he should win the peace prize every year.

Posted by: AndyR3 | October 9, 2009 9:59 AM | Report abuse

MORE ANNOUNCEMENTS

I have some proposals to make, in the spirit of the Nobel announcement.

Let's also give Mr. Obama the 2009-2010 NBA Rookie of the Year Award, and also Most Valuable Player! Note: The basketball season has not even begun, but hey, have you ever seen a hoopster with better intentions?

And let's not stop there. Let's also give Mr. Obama the Nobel Prize for Medicine. After all, his now-stealth health care plan WILL (absolutely!) - someday - save millions of lives, but, of course, no sooner than he reveals to the world what's actually in the plan. No matter, no trouble, it's GOING to happen, so let's give it to him now! He DESERVES it!

Posted by: FreedomFirst2 | October 9, 2009 9:58 AM | Report abuse

The "11 days" criticism is unfounded. That's how long he was in office before the nomination deadline. We don't know who threw Obama's name in the hat, but the committee did not limit themselves to the nominee's accomplishments up to the deadline. In their announcement, they mention the Muslim speech and the nuclear disarmament efforts since then.

On further reflection I would say that the way Obama has handled himself in the last 12 months, especially his calm concern over the financial crisis, may have merited the prize just for averting a global depression. (And if you don't think an economic depression can lead to war, please see WWII).

Posted by: mikenmidland | October 9, 2009 9:58 AM | Report abuse

"The peace prize should quickly erase the memory of that embarrassment for Obama and restore his image as a respected player on the world stage in the eyes of the international community."

Only in the minds of the wingers and the Villagers in the DC Bubble did losing the Olympics make Obama lose 'hi image as a respected player on the world stage.'

What a shallow observation, Chris. It was always a long shot, he tried it, so what?

Have you ever tried actually talking to someone in the international community, or is this just what you heard at the Beltway cocktail parties?

The pundits must all go to the same ones, they certainly are all quick to come to the same silly conclusions.

Posted by: drindl | October 9, 2009 9:58 AM | Report abuse

I disagree that this is necessarily going to strengthen Obama. I could see it boosting his standing if the prize were awarded based on real, CONCRETE accomplishments. However, it seems to me at best that the prize was awarded in anticipation of what he MAY be able to accomplish. That being the case, I don't believe that any long-term benefits will accrue to the President from this prize. Unfortunately, by awarding the 2009 prize to Mr. Obama I believe that the Nobel committee has cheapened the Nobel Peace prize. I don't think it carries the same weight it did when the Peace Prize was awarded to major figures of long standing importance such as Lech Walesa and Desmond Tutu.

Posted by: sarah_metzger2 | October 9, 2009 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Can't we just say "score one for America" and share a moment of pride in this before cynicism and divisiveness take over?

Posted by: valandsend | October 9, 2009 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Actually, Obama received the "Ignoble Appeasement Prize."

Posted by: Jerzy | October 9, 2009 9:53 AM | Report abuse

BTW, look how the right was bemoaning that Obama had not fixed the mess Bush left him after 8 months, yet now are whining that he doesn't deserve the Nobel because he's only been in office "for 11 days". So much for consistency in their criticism.

Posted by: Pupster | October 9, 2009 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Isn't it curious that Obama's frothy critics are now saying he hasn't done enough to deserve the award, that it was premature because he has not held office long enough, yada, yada. Yet, wasn't it just last week that on a number of talk shows Obama was being blamed fopr everything that was presently wrong in America.

Look. Chris, there is no down side to winning the Nobel Peace Prize. I understand that you in the media find it necessary to throw this cheap bone out to the right wing talk shows but the truth is that they represent a very narrow and bitter slice of the general electorate.

Limbaugh, Beck, the Fox News contingent, the Weekly Standard crowd--sure, they are going to wail about how this is nothing but a bunch of left wing peacenik internationalists rewarding one of their own but, recall that only last week this same bunch of nattering nabobs (my compliments to Spiro Agnew wherever he is) was telling us that Obama's internatinal image was crumbling over the loss of the Olympics to Rio. Ooops!

Premature? The only thing premature here is the gleeful dancing in the street of all of those shamelessly partisan and disloyal right wing traitors over an American President losing an Olympic pitch. I don't think the majority of Americans--or even republicans will easily forgive them for that.

Posted by: jaxas | October 9, 2009 9:49 AM | Report abuse

I'm loving all these hysterical reactionary hissy fits, like 2 yos throwing themselves on the ground and wailing out their tantrums.

The world can finally breathe a sigh of relief that the terror of Bush and his neocon thugs have finally been kicked off the stage. Good riddance and don't let the door hit you on the way out. This is a complete rebuke of the last 8 years of Bush wielding our military like a club.

And really all sound rational people of America are breathing the same sigh of relief. Because we finally have a grownup in the White House.

Posted by: Pupster | October 9, 2009 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Not since Woodrow Wilson (1919) has a sitting US President gotten the Peace Prize, the only other was Teddy (Rough Rider) Roosevelt in 1905. Lets hope Obama is more effective in peacemaking than those two.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 9, 2009 9:38 AM | Report abuse

If the Nobel committee were actually serious, they would have give the prize to all Americans for a real accomplishment, electing BHO President. Instead, they are rewarding a leader who has yet to accomplish anything. Muslim terrorist bombs continue to explode and Muslims terrorists continue to kill Americans.

Posted by: HarroldtheCat | October 9, 2009 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Regardless of what you think of Obama, there's no way he has done enough to deserve this award. It cheapens the Nobel Prize. Bill Clinton didn't even win for his efforts in Ireland which were instrumental in ending a decades-long war that many thought impossible to end.

I have to agree with those who think that this is just the Nobel committee's way of giving the Bush administration and their supporters a huge slap in the face. And whatever you think about Bush, that's not what the Nobel Peace Prize is about, and I think it's wrong that it should be used as a cheap political stunt.

Posted by: Breandan_from_Ireland | October 9, 2009 9:31 AM | Report abuse

What's next? OBAMA WINS THE WORLD SERIES!

Posted by: carlbatey | October 9, 2009 9:30 AM | Report abuse

I think it was a boost to alternative energy as soon as they figure the technical details of harnessing Alfred Nobel's bones spinning in their grave.

Posted by: edbyronadams | October 9, 2009 9:28 AM | Report abuse

This refutes both the left and the right. The right thinks bullying is the only way to do things... witness all their lies against Obama. The left thinks Obama can snap his fingers and make everything change. They believe in fairy tales. Witness SNL skit. The media pounce on Obama to make headlines, they get it wrong too. It takes an objective outside source to shake the American people up and say, don't kick around someone who is doing something really good, give him time to get the job done. I think this award is an attempt to snap the American people out of their cynicism on all sides.

Posted by: goldie2 | October 9, 2009 9:26 AM | Report abuse

The award is not only for what he has done which has been significant on the world stage, (and remember we see the "American" point of view not the "World" view of foreign affairs), but also for where it will lead. I like the idea that it puts America under Obama's leadership in the respected place of being the world leader for Peace and Understanding and sets a precedent for change from diplomacy not weapons. As a father with a son in Afganistan serving in the army I want change via diplomacy not weapons.

Posted by: rblack2 | October 9, 2009 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Explains why he didn't win the Olympics prize. Can't have him winning everything.

Posted by: Xlnt | October 9, 2009 9:17 AM | Report abuse

I think this selection says as much about America in its current state as it does about President Obama. After 8 years of "empire building (trouncing)" we are using diplomacy and real care for others in our approach. With President Obama we have the foundation for true peace. Colin Powell was correct one year ago when he endorsed then candidate Barack Obama, when he said Barack Obama had the potential to not only be a great president but a transformational president. The cynics are simply being cynical but those of us who are more comfortable with the truth, see this for the transformational reality that it is.

Posted by: Nina1908 | October 9, 2009 9:16 AM | Report abuse

I think this is not so much a comment on President Obama's accomplishments to date as it is a comment on the overwhelming desire overseas for America to both lead decisively and work collaboratively on the international scene. When republicans criticze Obama's overseas popularity as a betrayal of America, and somehow a commentary on capitulating America's interests, it really misses the point. I don't think the future of American power lies along the lines of staying on top in every arena. Rather the future of American power is going to be whether we can leverage our moral authority along with our economic clout to help lead the world to continued improvements in peace and standards of living for the most disadvantaged. The world has a schizophrenic relationship to America - out military and economic might is greatly feared, but our history of freedom and economic growth is greatly admired. There are things we can do to make the world a better place that no other country can do. The Nobel Prize to Obama should mostly be taken as a cry from the world to America - "we want what you have - please help us".

Posted by: mmrader1 | October 9, 2009 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Effectively, this prize is for the american people for voting George W. Bush out of office and simultaneously voting Obama into it. It is a refutation of all things Bush and those that blindly supported him. The right can take comfort in the fact that Obama is merely lauded for what he might do versus what has he really done (to deserve this.) But what the right is unable to do is to take responsibility for the unprecedented damage that Bush's actions have caused. C'mon Chris, put your "adult pants" on call a spade for a spade.

Posted by: truthnow | October 9, 2009 9:11 AM | Report abuse

CC as usual your bias shows.

Posted by: rlj1 | October 9, 2009 9:11 AM | Report abuse

While I congratulate the president on a prestigious honor, as a voice of the left, I do not understand it. He has not yet achieved anything tangible as far as halting a war, ending a situation, he has not produced new treaties that reduce environmental harm or even moved the debate, he has not closed down interrogation facilities for "foreign fighters". So far he has made some nice speeches- it kind of devalues a prize to give it out before anything has been done. It was not given American roles for peace in Ireland, end of genocide in Bosnia/Herzegovinia/Kosovo or facilitating Rabin/Arafat meetings. Nobody is looking at Africa or Latin America policy.

Anyhow I hope he does something now to earn it.

Posted by: NYClefty | October 9, 2009 9:08 AM | Report abuse

The prize has more than a century history of going to well intentioned people and their pet projects (Woodrow Wilson, Doctors Without Borders). There is simply not enough peace to give this thing to an actual peacemaker every year.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 9, 2009 9:06 AM | Report abuse

Le Duc Tho of Vietnam refused the NPP in 1973 because the war was still on. Obama should follow that precedent. Or perhaps he can ask for a rain check.

Posted by: DemoDevil | October 9, 2009 9:05 AM | Report abuse

"restore his image as a respected player"?? seriously?
the man was nominated after he'd been in office for only 11 days. All he had done up until that point was pretty much run a very effective campaign as president and given a good inaugural speech.

Seriously Fix, back away from the over-sugared girlie drinks at the coffee houses.

Posted by: lookersmom | October 9, 2009 9:03 AM | Report abuse

For comparison, the Physics prize was given for work done in the 1960s, which has led to digital cameras and fiber optics. It took this long to see the impact.

No matter what Obama's efforts eventually yield, we haven't seen any concrete results yet. The politics of war and peace often evolve much more quickly, but there has to be more than just intent here.

Yes, this prize, like Gore's, is a slap at the Bush Administration. That slap was well deserved. If the way to do that was to award this now to Obama, so be it.

It may help with nuclear negotiations, perhaps a bit with Iran. I doubt very much that it will have much impact on Afghanistan, let alone domestic policy.

Posted by: mikenmidland | October 9, 2009 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps the prize is really to the American people for cleaning house?

Posted by: pbassjbass | October 9, 2009 9:01 AM | Report abuse

anyone who thinks this is much more than a joke is seriously deluded.

Posted by: zoomie95 | October 9, 2009 9:00 AM | Report abuse


Does President Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=6264
.

Posted by: usadblake | October 9, 2009 8:59 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company