America wins! Nuts....
Gail-Tzipporah seems to suggest that the best thing for Obama to do would be to outright reject the Nobel award. I've rejected two or three of them myself, but eventually my shamelessness got the best of me and I started wearing my medals to Ikea, where they give me a 20% discount for such a display.
I guess my real question is whether America's Fox-watching, God-fearing patriots are as happy to see a Christian president of our great nation receive international distinction as they were to see America fail in its Olympic bid a few days ago.
Bitter much?
I realize that some people were having a good laugh at our hapless president's unsuccessful attempts to schmooze the Olympics over into our backyard, but I for one thought the resulting embarrassment extended to all of us, not just to him. Furthermore, the Olympics is almost always a huge boon to a community, so I think it's a shame, really.
But I do not feel all warm, fuzzy and proud that our president won this. Frankly it does not matter whether he's a Christian or a Republican or the founder of Fox News. He has done nothing to merit this kind of award at this point; this merely serves to underscore the political leanings of the committee that oversees this -- the same people who said they were "kicking in the leg" George Bush (by giving the award to Carter). Pundits of every stripe are saying this award is fast losing its luster (or as you put it, "great international distinction") due to its misplacement (some of which Gail mentioned), and that indeed seems to be shaping up as the view of the "vast middle."
Seems like it will only be America's MSNBC-watching, God-rejecting socialists who will be happy about this one.
Oops, my bad as the kids say. After reading Earl, above, clearly not even MSNBC watchers like this.
If there were a Nobel prize for petulance, I think I know who would win.
Only half joking, Obama won because his greatest contribution to world peace was not being George W. Bush.
I think he has the potential for greatness as a president, and as a world leader, and as a peacemaker. And I think he symbolizes a new era of constructive engagement with our adversaries and solidarity with our allies, which will ease some tensions.
The Peace Prize has been awarded in the past to recognize "attempts" to do things (League of Nations; Cold War East/West rapprochment) or efforts in process (Ireland; Arias of Costa Rica) so the idea that they would award the prize to someone who calls for action toward sanity on Guantanamo and torture, and coordination on climate change, and constructive dialog w.r.t. Iran is not unprecedented.
An award based on what you might do? Yes, you're right, that precedent has been set. But it rather makes the award... meaningless.
A lot of commentators, and I include myself in that heady category, have remarked the absurdity, or more generously, the incongruity, of Obama winning the NPP. After all, the shtick goes, he hasn't done anything, but just talked people's ears off.
However, I note (from the wikipedia page, quoted from A. Nobel's will which established the prize) that the prize was to go to the person or foundation who
Fraternity among nations? Peace Congresses? Talking to your enemies and your allies? Gadzooks, but that sounds suspiciously like Obama's stock in trade. In relatively recent times, "peace" in Nobelese has meant things like standing up to Burmese thugocracy or South African racism, and these are to be commended; this is the modern extension of the idea of peacemaking. But from the beginning, it was never necessarily about about going mano a mano with the bad guys of the world. In this light, Obama's selection is perfectly consistent with Alfred Nobel's wishes, a sentiment that should resonate well with those "strict constructionists" among our number.
A significant percentage of people do not think Obama's "talking our ears off" has made the world one whit safer or more peaceful. Their argument? That he has not advanced the cause of peace as much as he has advanced the decline of American strength, which they argue will inevitably lead to less peace, not more.