« NOBLE EFFORTS MUST YIELD TWO STATES | Home | Leaked Ahmadinejad Diary Proves Iran Prez Is Jewish »
Nobel Open Thread
So, the internet is exploding this morning with the news that President Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The President says he's "humbled," some pundits say he should turn it down, everyone's got an opinion. What's yours?
Thread away.
Advertisement
It at first seemed to be Onion news. What a joke.
October 9, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe we should consider this a reflection not of our own sentiments, but more of an example how relieved the WHOLE WORLD is that we have transitioned from a warmonger presidency to a diplomacy president?
How arrogant of anyone to see this from a U.S. perspective, it is just proof of how desperate the Bush/Cheney junta made the rest of the world.
Just by promising to back down from Bush's world-domineering, pre-emptive politics, and then getting elected in spite of it, Obama defrlated the world fear balloon considerably.
Essentially, he brought PEACE to millions worldwide, and that fact alone, that he would run on the very platform of change that he chose, qualified him for this prize.
And he won, to boot.
Imagine that.
October 9, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you get it people? This Nobel prize is FOR US!
They're giving the Nobel prize to the electorate of the US for overcoming racism.
It's not Obama's prize. This prize is for the people of the United States for showing the world how a cosmopolitan and multi-ethnic democracy can work.
HOORAY FOR US! I'm going to start working on my acceptance speech.
October 9, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I second that thought.
This prize is for the people of the USA, for turning decisively away from the dark path we've been on for the past 40 years and more.
Nevertheless, Obama is the one who will have to live up to this prize. I say we help keep him on track and moving forward.
October 9, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point and a healthy way of looking at it. I concur.
October 9, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fully agree. People looking elsewhere for Obama's achievements need to look in the mirror. No more state-sanctioned torture, no more Crusading, no return to Cold War.
October 9, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
However, I wonder if the pending Afganistan troop decision was a consideration by the Nobel Commitee.
It would be an interesting turn of events for a Nobel Peace Prize winner to then escalate a war shortly after recieving the Honor.
If Obama doesn't send more troops to Afganistan, then expect the Right to cry foul that Obama is Kissing up to Europe or some other standard GOP BullSh*t.
You hear it here first folks...
October 9, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a shame Netanyahu and Mahmoud weren't declared joint winners instead. The results would have been....interesting.
October 9, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
October 9, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The world is confused, too..."
Speak for yourself, Karl, and you might have some credibility, we would probably all agree you are confused, but speaking for the whole world, that's a big lump of authority you seem to claim.
But them doofus Scandinavians, what would they know, huh?
October 9, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Having lived in these parts on and off for years, and having read commentary on the main news sites of 8 EU countries and having watched British, French, German, Italian and Spanish newscasts this morning, I am fairly confident in my estimate.
Your anecdote?
October 9, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Affirm the earth Karl. Can't you DANCE?
Get y'all's head da hell out of that dayum DAS KAPITAL and do some dayum victory dancin'
October 9, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
"having watched British, French, German, Italian and Spanish newscasts this morning,"
So, their MSM is any better than ours? Their neocons bought up those portfolio loss-leaders long ago, just like here in the US.
Why no Swedish or Norwegian broadcasts?
October 9, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the "MSM" is better. Think BBC. RAI is the worst of the bunch, but not terrible.
The reason I did not watch Nordics is that I read instead.
October 9, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me clarify the reception is not "boo, hiss, Obama is a loser" but pretty decidedly "hm, OK, maybe a bit too soon?"
As a rule, folks in the .eu like him, think he is a vast improvement over Bush, but are expecting actual results.
October 9, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I am currently in "the WHOLE WORLD", and have been for some time."
What a pompous statement.
Was the Nobel Committee's award due to its "America-centrism" as well?
October 9, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
In spite of it?
Bush barely get re-elected in 2004, and Obama beat McCain by over 7 percentage points in the popular vote, and had over double the electoral votes.
October 9, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
That "in spite of it" reference was intended as sarcasm. I get a little snarky now and then.
October 9, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, The Onion would make Steele the butt of that joke.
October 9, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't there a workout tape called "Buns of Steele?"
October 9, 2009 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The brevity of your opinion can only reflect the depth of your understanding in the selection. Bold stroke professor!
October 9, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see him try to escalate in Afghanistan now!
October 9, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's crazy to think he should turn it down, but he can't hype it. He'd be much better off winning this 10 years from now.
October 9, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not so much of a prize for Obama. More of a stick into the eyes of the republicans.
Who says international prizes aren't political.
C
October 9, 2009 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's also offensive to everyone who cares about and works for peace and non-military solutions. If and when Obama does anything meritorious in this direction, the idiots in Stockholm might have a point. At this point in time, this award is really offensive.
October 9, 2009 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your offensive for bein' a hatin' ass biotch.
WAKE UP DUDE. This Bud's for you - or Nobel prize that is. Enjoy. Don't hate.
October 9, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I won't reply in kind. You're happy, enjoy. I agree with much that Glenn Greenwald said here:
"Through no fault of his own, Obama presides over a massive war-making state that spends on its military close to what the rest of the world spends combined. The U.S. accounts for almost 70% of worldwide arms sales. We're currently occupying and waging wars in two separate Muslim countries and making clear we reserve the "right" to attack a third. Someone who made meaningful changes to those realities would truly be a man of peace. It's unreasonable to expect that Obama would magically transform all of this in nine months, and he certainly hasn't. Instead, he presides over it and is continuing much of it. One can reasonably debate how much blame he merits for all of that, but there are simply no meaningful "peace" accomplishment in his record -- at least not yet -- and there's plenty of the opposite. That's what makes this Prize so painfully and self-evidently ludicrous."
October 9, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greenwald thinks Greenwald should have won it.
October 9, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a puerile comment. Greenwald has been a consistent advocate for peace. Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan already; we'll see the results of the lengthy review but all signs are pointing to a prolomged war. I think Greenwald would be a better recipient of the award. I do not know what your comment is based on other than snark but if you have a case against Greenwald, by all means make it explicit instead of making puerile comments. Or not if that suits you best.
October 9, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cmaukonen is right.
AP: Common misconceptions about the Nobel Peace Prize
From an article on the Nobel website:
October 9, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for posting this. So all those tweaking about it should just calm the heck down.
October 9, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
You still would have to demonstrate that Obama had engaged in such efforts as of the nomination date.
Lots of luck with that.
October 9, 2009 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one is so blind as he who will not see.
Or maybe you're just a tribalist authoritarian filled with hatred.
October 9, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
And maybe you are a blind idolater with a cult-like fetish for Obama.
To each his own.
I voted for and support Obama, but he hasn't earned the prize through either effort or accomplishment to date, much less had he by week two of his presidency.
It is not effort to simply be "not Bush."
October 9, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
RIGHT WING RACIST TROLL ALERT.
Name of Blog: Nobama
Posts under: Dilirius
Characteristics: A very unhappy freeper that escaped his zoo keeper. Has trouble with spelling and prize awards. And black people in power.
October 9, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're the one who came in here and started throwing around slurs, so to suggest that anyone who objects to your tone is an "idolator" is silly and shows your true nature.
October 9, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did not use the word "idolator."
It was "idolater," which is the first, and therefore preferred, spelling of the term listed in the dictionary.
And it was in response to being called a "tribalist authoritarian."
So, you are let's say 'incorrect,' to be polite, in suggesting that I started throwing slurs around, even assuming "idolater" is a slur, much less a slur in the sense of "right wing racist" or "tribal authoritarian."
The fact that you are willing to be dishonest about this matter speaks volumes about YOUR true nature.
October 9, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you can't already see what you're looking for you're either not looking, not admitting to what you see, or a bit too shallow to understand what you are looking at.
No offense intended. Dig deeper.
October 9, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lot's of people see what they are looking for - that doesn't mean what they see is actually there.
E.g., Bush saw WMDs in Iraq that weren't there and so did his conservative supporters.
They also saw an Iraqi threat that was non-existent.
Yes, plenty of people see only what they are looking for.
October 9, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
No,Bush didn't see WMDs he fabricated information to be able to go into Iraq. He didn't see an imminent threat, he wanted to go in.
October 9, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you wouldn't. Fortunately, you and nitwits of like mind are not running the Nobel committee.
October 9, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would defeat the point of stirring-up controversy.
October 9, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
It will be wonderful to see all the radiohead wingnuts and Fox News maniacs foam-enting at the mouth over this. Their frantic protestations will fill the airwaves with the story, and it will get much more time in the media spotlight because of them.
Without the Rush-Hannity-Malkin crowd, this story would fade from the pages in a few days. But their indignant protests will keep it alive for weeks.
This will really weed out the political pawns from the political chessmasters.
Watch the pawns (especially those pawns who imagine themselves queens and kings) howl out loud from every wingnut pulpit, unwittingly helping disseminate the profound meaning of this moment in history, while the smart ones remain wisely silent.
Because the only wise thing for a smart republican to do right now would be to STFU, their protests just make them sound like sore losers, whining in the wind.
October 9, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. I was shocked at the initial news, since it did seem 'too soon'. But upon reflection, I see this just shows how frightened the rest of the world was during Bush's tenure.
October 9, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hooray for us...The naysayers are just neck deep in sour grapes! Then we have Steele and the wingnuts--who cares!
Just what have the repubs done for America--except get us into this fiscal morass, in two wars, and bailout the corporations., obstruct HC reform and lie out their teeth!
Another nail in the republican coffin!
Bet the clintons are roiling in this > Ha Ha Ha!
October 9, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Turning it down would be idiotic, but I can imagine Obama thinking, "really?? Do I need this right now with all the issues I have to deal with?"
October 9, 2009 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What the hell are you smokin' Bpurcel?
This is prize is for the American people for not being hatin' mothas!
Use da dayum head what God gave you and think.
This prize is not a 'problem.'
How long has it been since Obama was elected? HMM?
It's almost November. THINK.
October 9, 2009 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a perfect example of what Woody Allen once said:
"Ninety percent of life is just showing up."
October 9, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a big supporter of the President, but along the prestige continuum, the Nobel just moved away from the Congressional-Medal-of-Honor type award and a lot closer to the Mira-Sorvino-Winning-an-Oscar end of things.
October 9, 2009 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The prestige continuum".
Spare me. He shares this award with Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. With Henry Kissinger, for crying out loud.
The award retains all the prestige and nobility of a bukkake video. I'm actually pretty impressed with the choice-I think it sends an interesting set of signals to a person who literally spread a global gospel of "Yes We Can," and who we're all eagerly expecting to see carry his end of that bargain.
To whom much is given, much is expected.
October 9, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
The best response would be to fire Larry Summers out of a cannon.
Smack into Henry Kissinger.
October 9, 2009 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like your idea! if only.........
October 9, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
HA!!!
October 9, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great idea!
October 9, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just feel like it's giving World Series rings to the Yankees during spring training. It's a little premature, and I'm a strong supporter of the President's foreign policy agenda.
October 9, 2009 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Has the Nobel prize jumped the shark?
October 9, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
The award was undeserved, which is not the same as saying it went to an undeserving person. The "big outside world" is pretty confused about the prize too.
Obama has not, thus far, done much work that I would qualify worthy of the award but he is going in the right direction. It has been pointed out that the prize is often given for ongoing work: this is true, but usually the work has been going on for years already.
If someone has difficulty understanding my position, I think the best way to perhaps bring that about is to consider what happens if Obama manages to broker Middle-East peace, or achieve complete nuclear disarmament, or maybe cause some type of drastic reduction in west-east relations?
Is he then going to be awarded the Deluxe Signed Edition Nobel Peace Prize with Sprinkles on Top?
October 9, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, but he will receive a gift certificate to have his first award personally engraved at Things Remembered.
October 9, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
AP: Common misconceptions about the Nobel Peace Prize
From an article on the Nobel website:
October 9, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I addressed that.
October 9, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is he then going to be awarded the Deluxe Signed Edition Nobel Peace Prize with Sprinkles on Top?
Does this matter?
October 9, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
It does. How should Obama be recognised should he broker Middle-East peace?
October 9, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's still eligible for another one.
I thought Josh explained it well here.
October 9, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course he will be eligible. But is it your thought, then, that Middle-East peace is equivalent to whatever it is that this is supposed to be for?
October 9, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
KM, you are one of my favorites, so I'm really not trying to be in an argument with you.
Do I consider MidEast peace on a par with attempting to turn the US economy, reputation, foreign policies, domestic policies, war crimes, etc, the ship of state, that Bush laid upon us from the horribles into a decent, humanitarian global citizen? I don't know. I don't know whether I would value a cure for cancer over MidEast peace. I don't try to put these things into hierarchies of good, bad, and evil. I just try to value and appreciate what good we can get out of horrible.
And maybe I shouldn't love this, but that committee made one hell of a political statement that has blasted the heads off a party that I have no respect for. :-)
I do take it as a win for our side.
October 9, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anything that reduces Republicans further cannot be all bad.
I mentioned below that I do not think many here are truly happy about the award as it should be, but rather just as a "win" in this ongoing political game. I would also say that self-validation is a huge component of it, but it is perhaps unfair to analyse that deep.
October 9, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um,.... they might remember him in the history books?
Prizes are nice but reality is better.
October 9, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Y'know, they had to give the prize to somebody.
Here's how I imagine the voting went…
October 9, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
No they don't. There have been years when a prize wasn't awarded.
And the prize doesn't have to be for "World Peace", just peace.
October 9, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which was exactly what I meant by this sentence above;
"Just by promising to back down from Bush's world-domineering, pre-emptive politics, and then getting elected in spite of it, Obama deflated the world fear balloon considerably."
I think it is safe to say that deflating fear increases peace, and since that is really the spirit of the Nobel prize, and from that point of view, Obama certainly deserves it, because he really did deflate world fears, making room for that mysterious, quiet comfort we call "PEACE."
Peace is not just the absence of war, it is the freedom from FEAR that war is imminent.
October 9, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Peace is not just the absence of war, it is the freedom from FEAR that war is imminent."
I thought that was worth reposting, hoping it sinks in to some of our naysayers who just don't understand what it is like to live in fear of some mighty world power coming to dominate your loved ones..
October 9, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said.
October 9, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is patently silly. It is worth remembering that among Obama's decisions during his early presidency was to INCREASE American troop levels in Afghanistan and to follow the Bush administration's lead in defending policies of indefinite detention, regardless of the decision to TRY to close Gitmo. I am an Obama supporter - I donated, I volunteered, and I went to town hall meetings over the summer to shout down the crazies. But in the end, I have to say that this prize is premature at best.
October 9, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, he won't get the deluxe version. It will just be an affirmation of the Nobel he won today. Recognizing a person's overall belief system and ability to promote peace is as important as waiting until they accomplish it. Obama has the ability to promote world peace, partly because he is the antithesis of GWB but mostly because of his own demeanor, values and viewpoint. In a world where wars have been waged over and over again it is not crazy to recognize someone who has a gift that can be used for good. Yes, he is but one man....but no one gave him a shot at being president in the beginning. He has the ability to inspire others to be better and that can change a town, a county, a state, a country, a world. Not him, but us after being inspired to do more. What the hell is wrong with that?????
October 9, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did I imply there was something wrong with it?
October 9, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans are hypertribalist authoritarians who consistently put loyalty to a thoroughly discredited and selfish mindset before loyalty to country.
Or, put it another way... they're assholes. Republicans are assholes. Of course they're going to respond they way they've responded.
Remember Helen Keller as depicted in "The Miracle Worker" *before* she had her breakthrough? That's the Republican mentality. It's not even really a political position or an ideology -- again, it's simply tribalist loyalty. If you tweak my follower instinct, I'll follow, and I'll be fiercely against anything you tell me is "Fair Game".
We should be focused on changing the media's habits. The Republican Party has made its decision: they're the Party of The Civil War Was a Draw and The North Cheated So We Kinda Deserve To Be In Charge. To hell with them.
October 9, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
You sir, speak THE TRUTH.
They're bitter, they're nasty, they're resentful. Resentment coming from the Ayn Rand types is even more pathetic.
October 9, 2009 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
The worst aspect of the Republicans is their century-long rape and pillage of everything Abraham Lincoln ever stood for, all the while carrying around his poor abused corpse as a dry and dusty fetish object.
It's time to liberate Lincoln from the clutches of that damned cargo cult.
October 9, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The worst aspect of the Republicans is their century-long rape and pillage of everything Abraham Lincoln ever stood for..."
I wish that fit on a bumpersticker, it should be shouted aloud from every rooftop.
October 9, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I fail to see understand the reaction that this is somehow an embarrassment to Obama, that he is undeserving of it. And I seriously doubt if the Nobel committee gives much of a damn about the Republicans.
I'm guessing that he was awarded the prize because he has ended regime of torture and institutionalized illegality, and he has raised the stature of the US in the eyes of the rest of world to the point that there is once again hope of peace and prosperity instead of a miasma of dread and fear. Good for him. And good for us.
October 9, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, let's see . . . what if we gave Rookie of the Year to Darrius Heyward-Bey of the Oakland Raiders (2 catches and no TDs) four weeks into the season while several other rookie receivers have caught over a dozen passes with multiple TDs, not to mention other position rookies?
Yes, you should be embarrassed when someone gives you a prize you didn't earn for reasons of spite or race.
October 9, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're kidding about race, right?
October 9, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
What else has he done besides become the first black American president?
So, no.
October 9, 2009 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
AHHHHH! DAYUM! WAKE DA HELL ON UP BOAH!
We elected this black person. Y'know, we, the nation with the Bull Connors and the KKK and whatnot.
And the slavery and the Jim Crow and the...Jesus cracker, wake UP!
October 9, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
And a great thing it was.
But, I guess that means when we elect the first woman, she will automatically qualify for the prize.
Or the first asian . . .
Well, you get the drift.
October 9, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Given the fact that there were laws on the books that made nigros second class citizens - YES.
Given the fact of POLL TAXES. Yes.
Given the fact of FIREHOSES AND POLICE DOGS TURNED ON NIGROS AND JEWS AND MINISTERS WHO DARED MARCH FOR FREEDOM.
Yes.
Stew in them juices. It smells so good. Tasty.
MMMMM. Good.
October 9, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are saying that they awarded it because he's the first black president.
I'm going to have fun all day watching all the wingnuts go into paryoxms of exagerration.
October 9, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
RIGHT WING RACIST TROLL ALERT.
Name of Blog: Nobama
Posts under: Dilirius
Characteristics: A very unhappy freeper that escaped his zoo keeper. Has trouble with spelling and prize awards. And black people in power.
October 9, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
LEFT WING RACIST IDOLATER ALERT!
Posts under: seashell
Characteristics: A very blind cultist that sees only what he or she wants to see that escaped his or her psychiatric ward. Has trouble with reading comprehension and reality. And people who aren't black.
--------------
I guess anyone can play this game.
October 9, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't do it very well. No HTML, no links and NO credibility. But as a Republican, you should be used to the credibility issue.
I also smell a birther. If you are, you will get flagged for abuse. That's asking too much of us to put up with.
October 9, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see no links or HTML in this comment of yours (apart from the links and HTML imposed for all comments).
So, I take it that means this comment of yours has no credibility, right?
October 9, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I guess anyone can play this game."
You lost this game long ago, or you wouldn't be here trying to diminish the pride and feeling of some sort of progress, enigmatic though it may be, we are, for the most part, feeling at this historic moment of worthy recognition.
Go to some wingnut site and converse with people who agree with you. Condescend elsewhere, if you expect respect.
October 9, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
You both are just like the people at RedState.com and the real right wing trolls who regulatory post on left wing websites: ad hominem attacks on anyone who dares to disagree with you or criticize or question he who you worship, with defamatory claims about who they are and what they stand for - i.e., name-calling.
Hate is every bit a product of left wing fanatics like you as it is of right wing fanatics.
C'est la vie.
October 9, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
You come here AS an ad hominen attack against Obama, then lament when we do the same to you?
I guess it's IOIYAR, to attack, but when we do it in defense, you call us RedStaters.
Dilirous, YOU started the ad hominens, not us. You came here claiming Obama was somehow unworthy.
We just picked up your gauntlet.
Sounds more like a crybaby than a debate.
October 9, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS I certainly don't hate you, but I think you are either confused or a hypocrite, nothing personal.
October 9, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is CT. He invited those damn Hominems into the conversation again.
Bye, CT.
October 9, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You said it yourself - anyone who disagrees with the majority here, or more specifically with you (and seashell), should go somewhere else:
"Go to some wingnut site and converse with people who agree with you. Condescend elsewhere, if you expect respect."
You don't tolerate dissent and you don't want to read any opinions you don't share - how is that not "cultish?"
I don't think that's what the Democratic Party, or Obama, is all about, thankfully, but unfortunately there are rabid Obama supporters who insist that anyone not sharing all their opinions about Obama is a "birther," "troll," or "racist."
Just like there were rabid Bush supporters who insisted that anyone not sharing all their opinions about Bush were "traitors," "anti-American," or "communists."
October 9, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You come here AS an ad hominen attack against Obama"
False.
". . . you call us RedStaters."
False.
"Dilirous, YOU started the ad hominens, not us."
False.
"You came here claiming Obama was somehow unworthy."
This is not an ad hominem attack, even if that were an accurate characterization of what I said. So, false, again.
October 9, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, we know you're a troll. But let's argue the sports analogy (even if seeing politics, or business for that matter, as if it is sports is a childish and limiting metaphor). Obama, having perfected a pitching style that had been neglected for many decades, even denigrated as "sissy," used it to win the presidency of the most powerful nation in history, in a period of grave world-wide crises.
Let's face it, preaching peace, reconciliation, and open dialog has not been a formula for winning the presidency. TR campaigned on his "big stick." JFK campaigned on a phony "missile gap." HRC portrayed herself as bravely dodging bullets in a war zone. McGovern has long been held to ridicule for running on ideals of peace. Carter lost office for a perceived lack of sufficient belligerence against Iran.
If there were a Nobel War Prize, then Obama wouldn't deserve it. Maybe war is to be preferred to peace. But that's not at issue. The premise of the present award is that peace is preferable. That's obviously something the previous administration - in control of a war machine equal in funding to all other armies in the world combined - did not believe. Achieving election to America's highest office while advocating peace is surely fully worthy of the world's most prestigious peace award.
October 9, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
You've made the best argument yet, without sounding the least bit cultish.
October 9, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed: Obama talked the American public down from the war party ledge Bush had us perched on.
October 9, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, it was an analogy, not a metaphor, and thus perfectly appropriate. Analogies are not intended as stand-ins, but to demonstrate generally similar principles. "Pump" is a poor metaphor for "heart," but it is a great analogy.
October 9, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bye, CT. Back to Bellvue for awhile. Take your meds.
October 9, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It pretty much destroys the credibility of the prize for future recipients, casts serious doubts about previous winners, gives the Right abundant ammunition to continue to criticize international institutions as being irrational and out of touch with reality, and will be an albatross around the president's neck.
But aside from that . . .
October 9, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
If awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Kissinger didn't destroy its credibility, nothing will.
October 9, 2009 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kissinger ended a war.
What war has Obama ended?
Still in Iraq, still in Afghanistan, still fighting in both places.
October 9, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
He ended a war? Really? I'm sure the President of the Republic of (South) Vietnam will totally agree with you on that. Let's get him on the phone at his office in Saigon and see how he feels.
October 9, 2009 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right Wing Racist Troll Alert
October 9, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I assume you're not talking about me.
October 9, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, of course not. I was trying to warn you (and others) and didn't realize it could look the other way, too. I'm sorry. :-)
October 9, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kissinger "ended a war" after gleefully supporting it - brutally- for years. He "ended a war" after first invading two other countries, including bombing the hell out of Cambodia, killing thousands, causing a refugee crisis and ultimately helping the Khmer Rouge. Yeah, that deserves a peace prize.
Tom Lehrer's response to being asked why he abandoned political satire: ""Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize."
October 9, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pretty sure Nixon did all those things.
But your mileage with real history may vary, since you seem to be out of touch with reality.
October 9, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right, Kissinger was just a minor player in those policies, serving only in small roles simultaneously as both National Security Advisor AND Secy of State. And it's not like Vietnam was a big deal at the time or anything.
And yes, I am out of touch with reality. That's why I bother responding to you.
October 9, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kissinger told Nixon to keep the war going so Nixon could paint McGovern as a defeatist wimp.
October 9, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kissinger did not end the Vietnam war. The American people ended it no matter how much the Rebubbacan't try to rewrite history.
October 9, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just like Reagan didn't end the cold war, Chernobyl did that, but the Republicans still try to manage history after the fact by suggesting Reagan's bristling militarism somehow scared the commies into folding.
It was the Russian people and their million-person march on Moscow that brought down the Soviet Union. NOT Ronnie Raygun.
October 9, 2009 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess the other 10 percent is not being George Bush.
Speaking of which, remember the WingNut campaign several years ago to get a Nobel Peace Prize for Bush? Trying to stir up the issue like the Hornet's Nest approach to anything would work as well internationally as it does with our lazy press?
This is just icing on the cake.
October 9, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
This morning someone on the Morning Joe show suggested that Mr Obama turned down the Nobel Peace prize. That might happen in the Bizzaro world but it isn't going to happen here.
October 9, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
TPM: will you PLEASE use your expanded reporting capacity to get a comment from McCain?
I need some snark.
October 9, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now I know why I married a Swede...
October 9, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would think that should have been obvious before you married her.
(OTOH, my first wife was a statistician. I'm much happier now.)
October 9, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
That Swede IS my first wife...
October 10, 2009 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
The real issue is how the President will respond to this award. He would do well to acknowledge it for what it is: an endorsement of his approaches and goals. This would convey the appropriate humility, and keep the spotlight on the process of international diplomacy, not simply the personalities. The world will definitely need Obama's diplomatic philosophy if it is to successfully confront poverty, conflicts, terrorism, climate change, nuclear disarmament, and many other pressing global issues.
October 9, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. I don't get this reaction at all. I read the Nobel Committee's statement and it makes perfect sense to me. Peace has to start somewhere and President Obama has been remarkably capable in making a U-turn back into the right direction.
October 9, 2009 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
"He's not George Bush" is not a reason for giving the Nobel Prize and you must have missed the part where the nominations were due about 2 weeks into his term, which means he hadn't made any turn yet, even if we accept the proposition that he in fact has made a U-turn, a questionable proposition at this point.
October 9, 2009 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
The nomination deadline doesn't mean they weren't allowed to consider anything that's happened since then. It means that's when the deadline for nominations ended.
October 9, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, what was the basis for nominating him?
Hoping he would do something in the future?
Then, let's nominate everybody. Who knows what any one person will do in the next few months.
Sheesh, what a lame rationalization for Obama getting the prize.
October 9, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dilirius, you have made more than enough vacuous comments, why don't you grab a Bud and turn on your ESPN.
October 9, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think your reply alone delivered enough vacuousness for the entire thread.
Try to post something that actually offers up some facts and opinion, rather than just snark.
October 9, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck off, asshole.
October 9, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded....
October 9, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
A blog with no snark is no blog at all...
October 10, 2009 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please read the Nobel statement. It sets out very clearly why President Obama was selected to receive this award. They put the dots pretty close together; you should be able to make sense of it.
October 9, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read it and the dots are a roadmap to nowhere, sorta like Palin's bridge.
October 9, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
CT is on the loose. Bye, CT. We're all tired of you. Again.
Go poop your pants elsewhere. Preferably Bellvue.
October 9, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"He's not George Bush" is a great reason for anyone to get a prize. But just to be fair, on another blog, I nominated George Bush the the "International Not Being Dick Cheney" award.
October 9, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
The following is the text of the announcement on Friday by the Norwegian Nobel Committee giving the Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama:
"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."
October 9, 2009 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really think the Noble committee is making a pointed comment against the Bush policies of the prior eight years. What they don't understand is that Bush sought peace also: we would have a world of peace, once we vanquish all of our foes.
Where is W's peace prize for attempting to instill world peace, from the barrel of a gun?
(snark intended).
October 9, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, it's kind of funny that the Republican party spends odd-numbered days attacking President Obama for being too chummy with the rest of the world and even-numbered days attacking President Obama for lowering our prestige around the world. DOES NOT COMPUTE... DOES NOT COMPUTE...
October 9, 2009 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand the question: what has he done?
1) Got elected president of the United States
2) Ended a regime of torture
3) Re-engaged the international community in actual international issues such as terrorism
4) Oh, he accomplished the first while promising to do 2 & 3
I'm sure I'll come up with more later . . .
October 9, 2009 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I must have missed that he did 2 and 3 in the first two weeks of his presidency . . . oops, no, I didn't because he didn't.
October 9, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
He promised to end torture and to re-engage with the international community. And he got elected.
October 9, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
So did Hillary Clinton and every other Democratic candidate.
October 9, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
No other Democratic candidate got elected.
That seems rather obvious.
October 9, 2009 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
No other Democratic candidate got elected?
Hmmmmmm . . . then how did the makeup of Congress change from majority Republican to majority Democrat?
Back to the drawing board for you, dtaciuch.
October 9, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't mind trolls but I do mind stupidity.
October 9, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jeezus, man. Elected President.
I'm done arguing with the resident troll, btw.
October 9, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coordinated and pushed through transnational response to global financial meltdown (caused by policies of his predecessor), expanded G-8 to the G-20 and somehow persuaded the lot of them to do a hell of a lot more than anyone ever expected a group that big and disparate to ever do, oh, and, just coincidentally, pulled the U.S. out of a catastrophic slide of international standing, regard and prestige caused by bellicose unilateralism of Bush/Cheney in a matter of months.
No, he doesn't "deserve" it, but the idea that he's done "nothing" is a rightwing calumny.
October 9, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
He did that in his first two weeks?
What are you smoking?
October 9, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
No. No, he didn't do it in his first two weeks. What else ya got?
October 9, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Skidmarks in his underwear?
October 9, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama failed to get Germany, the country best able to do so, to pass a stimulus package. So to say that he coordinated the reaction to the financial crisis is simply false.
October 9, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink