TPMCafe | Talking Points Memo

David Shorr: The Blindspot in Obama's Nuclear-Free Vision

M.J. Rosenberg: Clinton Ain't Buying Israel's Latest

Nov. 16-20: Going Rouge: Sarah Palin An American Nightmare
Jeanne Desko: Palin's Blame Game
Chris Hayes: What's Sarah Palin's Future In American Politics?
Richard Kim: Sympathy For The Devil?: Oprah and the Palin Media Blitz

« Economic security and the Republican presidential primary | Home | Confronting Davos: The Class Politics of Global Governance »

From: Coffee House

Gore in Oslo?

By Reed Hundt - February 26, 2007, 6:02AM

http://almaz.com/nobel/peace/peace.html

3 Comments

| Leave a comment

It would be premature and would send the wrong message - in other areas prizes are awarded for actual after-the-fact accomplishments. Gore is doing a great job and should run for President but giving him the Nobel prize would tend to suggest to the broad public that the heavy lifting on global warming has been accomplished when it hasn't even started. Further, the peace prize is essentially meaningless when you look at who has won it in the past - it's basically a political endorsement and it's not at all clear that it would be helpful; likely the opposite.

If Gore gets nominated the smart move would be to refuse it very publicly.

Posted by BornAgainDarwinian
February 26, 2007 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink

I would tend to disagree that a Nobel Prize suggests that the heavy lifting has already been done. Take a look at last year's winner M. Yunus and his work in microfinance and poverty eradication. Even after 30 years, the movement which he started still has a long way to go to realize his vision of extending credit to impoverished people everywhere. Should Gore win the prize, it would bring more welcomed publicity and recognition for the work he has done and will continue to do.

Posted by plainestguy
February 26, 2007 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink

plainestguy,

Thanks for the comment. I think the "Even after 30 years ..." says it. This is a programme with a history of actual and sustained accomplishment. I worry that too many kudos and prizes for Gore - who is "merely " in the early days of bringing attention to this issue will distract from the need to focus on actual long terms solutions. I say "merely" not to downplay what Gore is doing but to emphasize the difference between being aware and actually doing something.

I think being nominated for the prize would be great but that turning it down would really be an opportunity for Gore to underline the dire seriousness of the situation. Accepting would, in some ways, provide a handle with which nay-sayers could distract the focus.

Having said all that, I strongly think that Gore should run for president.

Posted by BornAgainDarwinian
February 26, 2007 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink

Coming Soon	Nov. 30-Dec. 4
January 12-16