Only in America can so many amazing things happen. Only in America is often a phrase used to describe positives and woes across the great spectrum of issues in our country. Today I think of only in America, can political zealots turn something like the Nobel Peace Prize into a negative. Our country is a strange place.
When George Bush was President, those on the right labeled you as a coward, un-American or poorly patriotic if you failed to agree with any of Bush's policies. It didn't matter if you agreed with 95% of Bush's plans but didn't agree with wire tapping, the invasion of Iraq or government sponsored torture, you were unAmerican.
Yet those same people now vocally cheered when the United States failed to get the Olympics. What could be more anti-American than celebrating that your country didn't get the Olympic games? Right, it was okay to boo America in this instance because President Obama had put fourth some effort to help secure the games for our country. I can't imagine any country being upset that its President had been awarded one of the highest honors for promoting peace and prosperity.
Only in America will you see men with flags on their porch and in their truck, so foolishly proclaiming it's a "bad" thing that our President has received the Nobel Peace Prize. He either didn't deserve it, or it just confirms how terrible he is. Apparently spreading a message of hope and peace isn't something America stands for. Ironic that America is supposed to be a land full of hopes, dreams and promise to promote peace but we now find certain parts of the country booing that idea, presumably in favor of war and destruction? If you're not a fan of world peace, then you must be a fan of world war? How nice.
Of course, right wing blogger Erick Erickson has it all figured out. He claims Obama won because he's black. It makes perfect sense too. Obama's blackness is why he won the presidency, it's why he could mobilize hundreds of thousands of people across the nation and in other nations, but don't you dare say that Erickson and his ilk are racist for saying he won his Nobel Peace Prize off of affirmative action. That would be, unAmerican.
I thought this might be a good place to copy and paste what I wrote in Zimmers blog this morning...it fits right in with yours Jake. Take care.
I'm not here to bash Obama, but Mr. Zimmer...you do realize that he was nominated for the award within 12 days of taking office, don't you? Not even Lincoln or Washington could find the White House water cooler within that time. I'm not a right wing nutjob nor do I wish to be full of negativity, but can you objectivley say that ANY person, regardless of political background, should be eligable for a Nobel Peace Prize after less then two weeks in power? If you say yes, then I begin to worry about 2 things:
1. How a Bush Presidencey has really disinfranchised people so much to the point that they are willing to go beyond the point of common sense in order to defend those who would never defend Bush or those like him.
2. How much our current President can do wrong and how long he can do it before his supporters fully realize it.
And as far as only people like Glen Beck crying foul on this one, you should go to the Op-Ed's of BBC, Time, MSNBC, CNN, or the AP...even normal supporters of President Obama conceed that this is at least a bit premature. Of a poll of close to 300,000 on MSNBC a combination of 76% say that this accolade is not deserved.
Take care and have a good weekend.
Posted By: Chris (Guest) on October 09, 2009 at 02:20 PM
Posted By: Stone Cold (Guest) on October 09, 2009 at 02:31 PM
And now if you don't like Obama's policies, your a racist and if you don't bend over in submission to rogue states, you're a war-monger.
The more things appear different, the more they simply remain the same...
Posted By: Mikel (too lazy to log in) (Guest) on October 09, 2009 at 03:18 PM
Chris, you have some interesting points and certainly ones I could debate, but my article is on my shock that people are upset that Obama has won this. That the Nobel Prize is somehow "bad" for America.
As an aside, I don't believe anywhere did they say Obama won the Nobel Prize because he became President. So his nomination had little to do with what he had done the two weeks he was President. His nomination came off the back of his campaign that had inspired millions across the world.
Posted By: Jake G (Guest) on October 09, 2009 at 03:28 PM
Are you kidding me? He's nomimanted because he ran a presidential campaign on hope and change? How do good intentions equate the peace prize? He hasn't even done anything yet!
Oh, except to ESCALATE the war in Afganistan (which I do agree with btw)
How is any of this deserving of the prize?
Posted By: joeypeeps (Guest) on October 09, 2009 at 03:57 PM
"When George Bush was President, those on the right labeled you as a coward, un-American or poorly patriotic if you failed to agree with any of Bush's policies. It didn't matter if you agreed with 95% of Bush's plans but didn't agree with wire tapping, the invasion of Iraq or government sponsored torture, you were unAmerican."
And while that is an exaggerated load of horse shit that noone ever seems to back up with any specific quotes of high ranking Republican or administration officials, it took less than a day for the DNC Communications director to conflate Republicans with terrorists and impugn their patriotism for the high crime of thinking this is all rather absurd.
“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...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."
- Brad Woodhouse, DNC Communications Director
That's right folks. If you, like seemingly everyone with a brain (including representatives of most major media outlets) think that this was all rather silly, you are in fact a terrorist and a horrible patriot.
Take your righteous indignation and get bent, Jake.
Posted By: Guest#666 (Guest) on October 09, 2009 at 04:11 PM
"His nomination came off the back of his campaign that had inspired millions across the world..."
To do what, exactly?
At the very least, one candidate was significantly more qualified for this award. From another source:
"Compare this to Greg Mortenson, nominated for the prize by some members of Congress, who the bookies gave 20-to-1 odds of winning. Son of a missionary, a former army Medic and mountaineer, he has made it his mission to build schools for girls in places where opium dealers and tribal warlords kill people for trying. His Central Asia Institute has built more than 130 schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan - a mission which has, along the way, inspired millions of people to view the protection and education of girls as a key to peace and prosperity and progress."
And you're telling me that Barack Obama has done more for peace in this insanely short amount of time than Mortensen?
Posted By: HH (Guest) on October 09, 2009 at 04:24 PM
Could not have said it better myself, Jake! Good article!
Posted By: The_RT (Guest) on October 09, 2009 at 04:38 PM
Player hating is a global phenomenon and not limited only to America. Its not like these pundits were rooting against something important such as America's war effort. Give the haters a break. If we didn't spend so much time listening to the haters, we probably wouldn't even know they exists.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on October 09, 2009 at 05:15 PM
1984
Posted By: SilvioJ75 (Guest) on October 09, 2009 at 05:53 PM
Amazing how Obama somehow became president without doing anything with his life until January 2009. Oh, wait - he was a Senator, an author, and ran one of the strongest campaigns based on hope, change, and peace in the past century. Granted I'm not happy with a lot of what Obama has done and hasn't done (like Michael Moore said, "congrats - now earn it"), but to say Obama hasn't done anything to earn the prize is ignorant of recent history. Obama has done more in one lunch meeting with the Iranians than Bush did in 8 years of saber rattling - bringing the Russians around on how to deal with them alone should have earned him the honor.
And gee, wasn't Rush Limbaugh trying to get nominated for the Nobel just a few months ago?
Also, in his first ten days Obama was drawing up plans for withdrawal from Iraq and closing Gitmo:
Granted those things are still being worked on, but to say Obama didn't do anything is simply wrong.
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on October 09, 2009 at 05:54 PM
And you're telling me that Barack Obama has done more for peace in this insanely short amount of time than Mortensen?
Posted By: HH (Guest) on October 09, 2009 at 04:24 PM
Two words: Obama's black
Posted By: Mikel (Guest) on October 09, 2009 at 06:32 PM
HH,
I partially agree with your opinion; however, Obama did something that Mortensen could never do. He inspired the whole world. He instantly approved foreign relations just with his campaign. Obama's election helped cement those positive feelings expressed towards the United States.
If anything, Obama help our country in foreign relations department. That is something Bush killed during his eight years in office. Now, I know some stupid people will say he did nothing, but it is a round world the last time I checked. The United States isn't on another plane of existence.
I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, HH. What I'm saying is it would nothing but defamation and deception to say Obama did nothing. They both did great things, but the judges picked Obama because it was on a larger scale.
Posted By: David (Guest) on October 09, 2009 at 07:01 PM
Jake
That kind of only further proves my point. The very fact that somebody, regardless of what party they belong to, regardless of what noble cause they speak of, received such a prestigious honor based upon mere words alone is rather unsettling.
At one time or another, every leader of every different country has "moved" the people they speak to, sometimes on a global level. Even Hitler (not comparing Obama to Hitler...just the situation, so relax everyone) moved Germans to tears with promises of a restored and glorious German power in the 1930's following their crushing defeat in WW1 and their collapse from the Great Depression.
Obama has promised a renewed bond between the United States and the rest of the world that will move us towards peace and tranquility. Sure, that sounds wonderful, but it also sounded wonderful in 76 when Jimmy Carter ran on a similar platform. That didn't exactly work out too well.
Even on ABC World News tonight, Charlie Gibson was interviewing George Stephanopoulos (who is as liberal as they come having served under Clinton) who flat out said "The Nobel committee pretty much awarded Obama because he is not George W. Bush and because he won the election." What does that say about the people who have won prior to Obama? It seems like a slap in the face, and states "As long as you merely appear to be more peaceful then your predecessor, you are eligible for the award."
Just the fact that words could have such meaning without having ANY action behind it makes me nervous about how many millions of people can be transfixed by a mere spoken word. If that is the case, should be not award the leaders of Iran for merely saying they will let U.N. inspectors into their reactor facilities? Just makes me uneasy.
Take care.
Posted By: Chris (Guest) on October 09, 2009 at 07:04 PM
1- The modern face of conservative culture is one of gibbering insanity. It makes one actually miss the relatively tame nut-jobbery of Reagan and his ilk.
2- Obama didn't deserve the prize.
3- Even he seems to have acknowledged this
Posted By: Q:? (Guest) on October 09, 2009 at 07:28 PM
Chris,
Again all valid points, but largely irrelevant. Most people don't care who wins the Nobel Peace Prize or why. Now suddenly everyone is an expert on who SHOULD have won?
The Nobel people have the right to give the prize to whomever they think for whatever merit they think. Whether the guy from ABC news thinks he deserves it or not. They set the criteria, they pick the winners. They felt Obama deserved it.
It's an honor for our country and our President. People should respect that, instead of questioning why he got it. It'd be different if Obama created the Obama Peace Prize and awarded it to himself.
He won fair and square.
Just my .2 naturally, but I do think it's silly for folks in our country to be outraged when they 99% of them wouldn't know who won (or cared for that matter) had it not been Obama. It stands to the larger point that certain sects of the country can turn anything into a negative. If Obama cures cancer tomorrow, some folks on the right will find a reason to hate on him for it or say he didn't really do it or deserve credit for it.
According to the rules, he won. Nuff said.
Posted By: Jake G (Guest) on October 09, 2009 at 10:08 PM
Two words: Obama's black
Posted By: Mikel (Guest) on October 09, 2009 at 06:32 PM
Thanks, Mikel. Way to show that multicultural Canadian spirit of yours.
It never ceases to amaze me when those on the "conservative" side whine and scream at those on the "liberal" side when race is brought up. "Stop playing the race card," they say. "If YOU didn't focus on race and just who's the best, there would be no racism!" they holler.
Then we find out from that end that the ONLY possible reason that someone could achieve anything is BECAUSE of that person's race.
What? What's that? Is that the sound of hypocrisy?
I've come to this conclusion to those who feel that they are being "wronged" because of others getting ahead because of "race". SUCK IT UP AND GET THE FUCK OVER IT.
This is the society we live in. History has affected the future, fucked it up BIG TIME for those who are "oh no, illegal immigrants, affirmative action, PROTECT OUR BORDERS!" xenophobes. You have a problem with it, get a gun and start killing someone who looks different than you, because that's gonna be the ONLY way you're gonna stop complaining about it.
And it's getting worse! Black guys are fucking white girls, white guys are fucking asian girls, east indians are fucking black girls - genes are getting fucked up and mixed together and cultures are clashing and different languages are being learned and new dances are being danced and people are discovering different religious beliefs and - NOOOOOOO! No more WASP's.
You got a problem with Obama winning an election BECAUSE he was black? You got a problem with him winning a Nobel BECAUSE he was black? You got a problem with someone getting a job and providing for their family BECAUSE they're not white? I got two words for you...
Too bad.
No, I got more words for you.
Too fucking bad. Do something about it or deal with it. I expect to see you posting some bullshit around here next week, so I'm already gonna figure(know) that you don't got the balls to do something about it. So learn to take it like a fucking man and cry yourself to sleep.
Posted By: The 8th Samurai (Registered) on October 09, 2009 at 10:18 PM
Two words: Obama's black
Posted By: Mikel (Guest) on October 09, 2009 at 06:32 PM
Thanks, Mikel. Way to show that multicultural Canadian spirit of yours.
It never ceases to amaze me when those on the "conservative" side whine and scream at those on the "liberal" side when race is brought up. "Stop playing the race card," they say. "If YOU didn't focus on race and just who's the best, there would be no racism!" they holler.
Then we find out from that end that the ONLY possible reason that someone could achieve anything is BECAUSE of that person's race.
What? What's that? Is that the sound of hypocrisy?
I've come to this conclusion to those who feel that they are being "wronged" because of others getting ahead because of "race". SUCK IT UP AND GET THE FUCK OVER IT.
This is the society we live in. History has affected the future, fucked it up BIG TIME for those who are "oh no, illegal immigrants, affirmative action, PROTECT OUR BORDERS!" xenophobes. You have a problem with it, get a gun and start killing someone who looks different than you, because that's gonna be the ONLY way you're gonna stop complaining about it.
And it's getting worse! Black guys are fucking white girls, white guys are fucking asian girls, east indians are fucking black girls - genes are getting fucked up and mixed together and cultures are clashing and different languages are being learned and new dances are being danced and people are discovering different religious beliefs and - NOOOOOOO! No more WASP's.
You got a problem with Obama winning an election BECAUSE he was black? You got a problem with him winning a Nobel BECAUSE he was black? You got a problem with someone getting a job and providing for their family BECAUSE they're not white? I got two words for you...
Too bad.
No, I got more words for you.
Too fucking bad. Do something about it or deal with it. I expect to see you posting some bullshit around here next week, so I'm already gonna figure(know) that you don't got the balls to do something about it. So learn to take it like a fucking man and cry yourself to sleep.
Posted By: The 8th Samurai (Registered) on October 09, 2009 at 10:18 PM
^^LOL, someone needs some prozac, you foaming at the mouth buddy? Do you need a hug? You sound like a very angry person who needs therapy. In posting this seething rant you lost what little credibility you already had.
Do yourself a favor and settle down, screaming won't get you anywhere. Why don't you do something if you don't like what other people think? However, you won't, you'll just post next week about why you can't fathom different points of view. GROW UP or DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
Posted By: Double AA (Guest) on October 09, 2009 at 11:08 PM
Also, only in America cab you say our soldiers are war criminals while mommy and daddy paid tuition. Also, only in America can a Senator say we lost the war and not apologize when proven wrong.
Posted By: S. Guy (Guest) on October 09, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Double AA (Guest) on October 09, 2009 at 11:08 PM
Try some bran in your diet.....
I've got a problem with the Nobel nomination committee 'jumping the shark' by using a previously respectable prize as a platform for liberal causes....not for who deserves it most (like Mortenson).
It started with giving it to Al Gore, a guy who was blowing greenhouse gases out of his ass and it continues with the left-wing messiah who hasn't done anything but bend over for rouge states except not be George Bush.
Posted By: Mikel (Guest) on October 10, 2009 at 12:24 AM
I think we fail to see certain points here - part of the outrage is that he got the Nobel Peace Prize for seemingly doing NOTHING that would qualify him for the world's greatest prize for peace.
It seems kind of deceptive and unfair - just the kind of thing we here in America like to decry. In fact, we in America have a habit of tearing down our public figures, enjoying their decent, and then enjoying them going back up to the heights again.
This whole situation reminds me of how Obama being a smoker never came up on the campaign trail - mostly to keep from negative stereotypes being associated with the Obama. That feels just decpetive enough to be a bit scummy...
Posted By: Stephen (Guest) on October 10, 2009 at 01:39 AM
I thought this might be a good place to copy and paste what I wrote in Zimmers blog this morning...it fits right in with yours Jake. Take care.
I'm not here to bash Obama, but Mr. Zimmer...you do realize that he was nominated for the award within 12 days of taking office, don't you? Not even Lincoln or Washington could find the White House water cooler within that time. I'm not a right wing nutjob nor do I wish to be full of negativity, but can you objectivley say that ANY person, regardless of political background, should be eligable for a Nobel Peace Prize after less then two weeks in power? If you say yes, then I begin to worry about 2 things:
1. How a Bush Presidencey has really disinfranchised people so much to the point that they are willing to go beyond the point of common sense in order to defend those who would never defend Bush or those like him.
2. How much our current President can do wrong and how long he can do it before his supporters fully realize it.
And as far as only people like Glen Beck crying foul on this one, you should go to the Op-Ed's of BBC, Time, MSNBC, CNN, or the AP...even normal supporters of President Obama conceed that this is at least a bit premature. Of a poll of close to 300,000 on MSNBC a combination of 76% say that this accolade is not deserved.
Take care and have a good weekend.
Posted By: Chris (Guest) on October 09, 2009 at 02:20 PM
First, and foremost, the actual vote for the Nobel Peace Prize didn't occur until a couple weeks again, from what I understand within the last week.
Secondly, in my book, a person, who happens to be a politician, who runs a national campaign on the premise that we, as individuals and as Americans, can believe and hope in a country that does better by all of it's citizens, by working off of common ground to solve the truly difficult issues facing us all, and not only defeats the Clinton machine for the Democratic nomination, but, in essence, blows out, nationally, the entire Republican field, based off the landslide electoral college victory and the number of congressmen and congresswomen he was able to carry into office, is enough to warrant a nomination.
Period.
Now the fact that Obama won the award, before he's even had the opportunity to follow through on many of his campaign promises, is something that I truly didn't see coming, and the folks who cast that vote have to settle that with themselves.
Still, in my opinion, the "outrage", with the best spin put on it, should be weighed on the Nobel committee, and at it's worst, can be seen as the continued example of a party and a political constituency doing it's darnedest, at every turn, to try and de-legitimize the presidency of this country's first non-white head of State.
Take that however you want to take it.
Posted By: scipio2009 (Guest) on October 10, 2009 at 04:24 AM
Yes. The Swiss voted for Obama because he's black. They're really hung up on it because of the slavbery and stuff.
Oh..right..they're a foreign nation who aren't saddled by our hsitory and you're a fucking idiot.
Posted By: AdamS (Guest) on October 10, 2009 at 04:36 AM
And now if you don't like Obama's policies, your a racist and if you don't bend over in submission to rogue states, you're a war-monger.
The more things appear different, the more they simply remain the same...
Posted By: Mikel (too lazy to log in) (Guest) on October 09, 2009 at 03:18 PM
Actually, that's pretty inaccurate, in my humble opinion.
If you don't like Obama's policies, on the merits, you can vociferously debate against them, on the merits.
If you don't like Obama's policy and the only argument that you can bring to the table is that Obama is some kind of "Manchurian candidate", "mysteriously" brought to this country by foreign interest, whose only purpose is to, in essence, "destroy the country from within, then the only logical conclusion that could be drawn is that race may actually play a major role in such an assessment.
Take the healthcare insurace debate.
Obama, in his general, broad strokes, "big idea" fashion, has put forward a framework, which he has revised, of a health bill that he would gladly sign into law: a 10 year, ~$900 billion bill, that doesn't add to the deficit, prohibits coverage discrimination based on preexisting conditions, dropping people from coverage, capping coverage benefits over the life of the plan, taking a look at malpractice reform, and including mechanisms, put in place to make insurance coverage as affordable as possible for all Americans, include those now required to have insurance coverage.
In my opinion, a pretty strong template of a plan to work off of.
Now you can oppose what the president is trying to do, in a constructive way.
On the outside, critics like Joe Scarborough, David Brooks, Charles Kraughthamer(sp?), and others have done so, on the merits.
On the inside, off the top of my head, names like Snowe, Whitehouse, Wyden, Carper, Schumer, Rockeffeller and others in the Senate, have all been constructive critics.
Even in the House, Reps Ryan and Barrasso, both Republicans, in my opinion, bring some solid ideas to the table. The fact that they want to write RNC-based policy, when their party is by far in the minority and they aren't willing to give votes to come halfway, is another story.
Still, the guys are bringing constructive criticisms to the table.
But, when, instead, you have people harping about government sanctioned "death panels" for the elderly, "evil foreigners" stealing healthcare, and a party whose M.O. is that all government programs should be done away with, vowing not to cut Medicare, makes you believe that their hearts and minds aren't in an honest place, in my opinion.
Posted By: scipio2009 (Guest) on October 10, 2009 at 05:10 AM
I would state that Bush just on his actions to help Africa have done more then Obama has done . Look I'm glad that our president get this award it's not a bad thing, but it still doesn't change the fact that compared to what others have done to EARN this award it's a shame they don't honor those. O Well it only lowers the prestige of the award by ignoring people more deserving. I'm not a huge fan of Obama, but he could have really one me over, by simply not accepting it
Posted By: Guest (Guest) on October 10, 2009 at 05:43 AM
It's hilarious how it's only the conservatives who are calling Barack the Messiah.
Posted By: Jamal (Guest) on October 10, 2009 at 07:29 AM
Jake
Excellent point about people not caring about the Prize if Obama had not won. However, I take issue with one thing.
Now I cannot speak for the general population of those who are upset with Obama's Peace Prize, but what bothers me about this, and what IS relevant, is that despite some (such as yourself) stating that this is a great honor (and should be treated as such) and that it makes us look good, it arguably is a gut blow in disguise. What this does is bring, in some circles (and not just on the right, but abroad in Poland, Pakistan, Israel, Palestine, Iraq, and among what is sure to be millions upon millions more across the world) negative attention towards us. It reveals the bias in this award towards a country always in the national spotlight and at risk to global scrutiny and sets Obama up to potentially be the bad guy (even though he was not the one who awarded it).
Imagine if you will a running back for the Dallas Cowboys winning the MVP trophy for 3 touchdowns, a 2.3 yard per gain average, and only 603 rushing yards, whereas there are two dozen running backs in the league with better stats, on better teams, and who have contributed far more impact wise to their team. As the owner of the team the football player plays on , I begin to hear a majority of people calling this award a joke, and highly resenting my running back as a result (which, al though unfair, is a natural reaction). One of my players, on my team, is the laughing stock of professional football. Do you not think that it might reflect badly upon the team in general, even through no fault of their own? I can honestly say yes...it will.
That is why this is relevant. Has nothing to do with the fact that it is Obama personally, but the fact that a leader who is presiding over two wars (and possibily about to send 40,000 more troops to one of them, even though he did not start the war) was nominated 12 days into office when he had no chance to make anybodies life truly better or worst, and who leads the the country with the brightest spotlight upon it won a Nobel Peace Prize.
Just not good. Bring unwanted negative attention to all involved. Makes him, if you will, something of a paper champion, it reduces the importance of the award, and it leaves a bad taste in the mouth of those who look upon both Obama, and the country in general.
Ok...have a nice weekend. I get to go to a pumpkin patch with my girlfriend today...yea!!!! (note to self-somebody kill me). :)
Posted By: Chris (Guest) on October 10, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Very nice leftist rant...
You are correct in your assessment of the right, too bad you have blind spots in relation to the left.
Posted By: M:-X (Guest) on October 10, 2009 at 10:29 AM
People are missing the point of this article. Stop point at Obama winning; that's irrelevant to the point being raised. The author was looking at the irrational reactions many in this country are having. For quite a few, it's less about Obama's qualifications and more about the fact that he's liberal. Anyone who can claim this is a bad thing regardless of how we got here confuses me. It's almost as if they would cut off their nose just to spite their face. They hate Obama so much that it doesn't matter what positive attention he's bringing to this country, because the Nobel community obviously saw him as a positive influence on the world stage. Get past the fact that you don't like how he was given the award because the award isn't going to be retracted. A sitting American President won the Nobel Peace Prize. That can never be a bad thing.
Posted By: Guest#1675 (Guest) on October 10, 2009 at 01:08 PM
Again all valid points, but largely irrelevant. Most people don't care who wins the Nobel Peace Prize or why. Now suddenly everyone is an expert on who SHOULD have won?
Posted By: Jake G (Guest) on October 09, 2009 at 10:08 PM
LOL! It doesn't take an expert to see that Obama didn't deserve the award. All one needs is a little common sense, something which the award committee apparently lacks.
Posted By: JD (Guest) on October 10, 2009 at 03:46 PM
Okay, here's the deal.
A. Anyone who sees this as a delegitimization of the awards given out to deserving people before now has a valid case. It does cheapen the award, but that's honestly nothing to get riled up about.
B. Anyone who tries to blame Obama and the Democrats for this is an idiot. This came as a suprise to EVERYONE, which means they didn't have anything to do with it. It's not the man's fault that the Nobel Committee picked him, and I'm fairly certain he wishes he hadn't won the damn thing. Stop trying to act like he had a hand in this.
If you don't like the fact that a President who has been in power for less than a year won this award while getting ready to expand a war, I agree with you. If you think that these awards have turned into a popularity contest, I agree with you.
But if you try to blame this on 'The Left' and Obama for this happening, and acting like it's some kind of malicious outrage that they must have planned, I question your intelligence.
If you want to complain about this administration, there are plenty of talking points. Don't bitch about the Olympics and a Nobel Prize
Posted By: The Man (Guest) on October 10, 2009 at 04:34 PM
So no one would care about this award if Obama hadn't of won.. BUT since he did win it's some big deal worth touting? And now you want to show off a medal of him winning but people cant disagree.
Posted By: Guest#1341 (Guest) on October 10, 2009 at 07:46 PM
Chris,
Those who are upset on the world stage were going to be upset regardless if Obama won or not. Most on the world stage were overjoyed and offered kinds words. Obviously people in Iran are going to see things differently, but this didn't really amount to much to them either way. They'd hate us all just the same.
I think that's part of the problem. The rest of the world is happy for Obama. Certainly not all of it, but the more rational parts. You keep going back to the 12 days in office, but as others have stated that had little to do with why he won the award.
The committee set the criteria and awarded it to Obama. They listed why and it's hard to deny that in the last year there was any voice louder than Obama's about peace and understanding.
As it pertains to the two wars, Obama certainly didn't start those. Yes, getting a PEACE prize should indicate that he should be working to end those wars, however, most on the national stage realize that wars cannot be ended in the blink of an eye.
Obama has sought to restore the American dream not only home but aborad and him winning the Nobel prize is an admission from those on the world stage that they believe he is doing that. So I highly doubt this will "strengthen the international hate against us" as the whole reason he won is because the international world sees us much more positively now.
Posted By: Jake G (Guest) on October 10, 2009 at 11:10 PM
I don't understand all the negativity toward the President winning this award!! After all....did he or didn't he broker the peace agreement between Officer Crowley and Professor Gates???? Hmmmm??? Anyone???? NOW where are all those who say he didn't deserve the award??!!!!
Posted By: Guest#7281 (Guest) on October 11, 2009 at 02:05 AM
can you name one thing that obama has done that he promised? gitmo still open, wasting tax payers dollars to try and bring Olympics here when 99.9%of his "change" has yet to happen. Sorry floks i just dont see what is so great about this man that he would have won the nobel peace prize, he has yet to follow through on any of his promises. But the one good thing is after jimmy carter we got ronald regan so i am looking for something great after this faux president leaves office
Posted By: stkwchr (Guest) on October 11, 2009 at 11:28 AM
lets call a spade a spade here[no pun intended] When bush was President we got to here all kinds of poison from the left about how evil Bush was and how he was going to destroy Roe.V.S. Wade, and bring back slavery[that was an actual conversation that i overheard from 2 black guys in a club ver batim it went " Bush is gonna f--k up all of our shit, but at least when slavery comes back we will be working"
And now you expect the disenfranchised right[with no votes that count by the way] to give Obama a break and be happy for winning an award based on what he could do if given the chance?_Let me remind you that he has the house and the senate and cant seem to save America from ourselves by telling us what we need instead of asking what we want. You shoul go back to the hate america first college that you graduated from and maybe someone will teach you how the world works.
Posted By: jeff albertson (Guest) on October 11, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Well Jake, all I can say to that, respectfully, is keep enjoying the Kool-Aid. :)
Posted By: Chris (Guest) on October 11, 2009 at 05:24 PM
What President Obama has done has spread the idea of peace throughout the world so quickly after 8 years of most people worldwide believing President Bush would lead us into World War 3 and everyone trashing the US. Even Obama himself says he didn't feel he deserved the honor, but would accept it as a call to duty. This is also exactly why I feel he got it... the President has promised us and the rest of the world a lot of things... I believe, and apparently so does he, this is supposed to motivate him to follow through. The right wing nutjobs need to realize it's not all about the US and certainly not all about them. There are other countries in the world that are just as important. We all live together in a WORLD community... it's not all about one single country. It's good to have pride about where you live, but you have to know where to draw the line so that you don't insult people... this is exactly what creates animosity and stirs up wars.
Posted By: Greg Ziggler (Guest) on October 11, 2009 at 09:57 PM
Hey Greg,[or Mr.Ziggler if you will] did you know World War 2 was started because Winston Churchill called Hitler a pussy.Its true. And japan oned uped Hitler by making fun of F.D.R.'s whellchair. Roosevelt responded by calling Tojo a cocksucker.and before you know it World War 2... Cumbaya my lord cumbaya...sing it with me greg...Cumbaya
Posted By: Jeff Albertson (Guest) on October 12, 2009 at 09:55 AM
"Let me remind you that he has the house and the senate and cant seem to save America from ourselves by telling us what we need instead of asking what we want. "
This is worthy of exploration by itself...
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Registered) on October 12, 2009 at 04:24 PM
Funny on the label of this Kool-Aid it says facts. Mmm, tasty facts. Let me know how that big glass of delusional denial is working out for you. ;)
Posted By: Jake G (Guest) on October 12, 2009 at 10:56 PM
"The Nobel people have the right to give the prize to whomever they think for whatever merit they think. Whether the guy from ABC news thinks he deserves it or not. They set the criteria, they pick the winners. They felt Obama deserved it.
It's an honor for our country and our President. People should respect that, instead of questioning why he got it. It'd be different if Obama created the Obama Peace Prize and awarded it to himself."
Jake G: You seem to acknowledge that this was an arbitrary decision, yet you call it an honor. Regardless of what the award is or who won, I don't see how those two statements can coexist.
As for no one caring before Obama won, it's not like the ceremony is on national TV and we all just skip it. Given the nature of news reporting, the peace prize in all likelihood should go to someone we've never heard of. That doesn't equate to ignorance or apathy before now.
This was a stunt, and the ulterior motives of some who point it out don't mean the genuinely puzzled aren't allowed to say so. He got an award for not being George W. Bush, in which case they have six billion more meaningless medals to pass out.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Registered) on October 13, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Everybody in Chicago who has a brain (and isn't in the construction industry) was THRILLED we didn't get the Olympics. We can't keep our school children alive, we can't have operational public transportation, we can't get contracts for our police and fire departments. The city government is crooked from the top down, and there's no actual money in the city. I'm sorry, but the Olympics can bankrupt Rio. I'd prefer my city survive the next decade.
I voted for Obama and I generally support what he does. Cheering for not getting the Olympics was not a partisan issue for me. I just love my city far too much to subject it to such a crippling experience.
Posted By: JD (Guest) on October 14, 2009 at 07:05 PM
STAY CURRENT