The world as it is today
The AP reports on an event said by the WaPo to be a “rebuke of the Bush administration’s go-it-alone approach to world bodies and alliances”:
President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision designed to encourage his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.
Many observers were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in the Obama presidency, which began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline and has yet to yield concrete achievements in peacemaking.
Some around the world objected to the choice of Obama, who still oversees wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and has launched deadly counter-terror strikes in Pakistan and Somalia.
Congratulations to President Obama. One way or another, we suspect it will be very interesting to look back at this moment in a few years, and see just how the Nobel committee’s attempt to help shape future US foreign policy has worked out for the world. (Peter Beinart has an amusing take on events, and John Podhoretz offers the view that the award was fitting.)
October 10th, 2009 at 8:25 am
First Gorbachev, instead of Reagan. Then mass-murdering scum Arafat. Then anti-American lunatic Jimmy Carter. Then Al “Hot Air” Gore.
Now, this. The most ridiculous award of any prize, in any competition, in the history of prizes of any sort. Shame.
October 10th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
What next? The Heisman Trophy? The Pulitzer Prize? Miss World? He seems at least equally qualified for any of them.
October 10th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
A note to Republicans: it is good news for America when its sitting president wins the Nobel Peace Prize. Show some grace on this one, please.
October 11th, 2009 at 6:42 am
If Obama wins this award 3 times, should they retire the award and give it to him in perpetuity?
I know that is an old school thought but that’s how these important awards used to be handed out a few generations ago, when Nobel started the award.
Obama should be a shoo-in for next year’s award. Who would be his competition? Can you picture someone beating Obama when he hit’s his prime? With 2 back-to-back awards, he would be very difficult to top for a third award. I think after the Nobel committee awards 2 Peace Prizes to Obama, they would be hard pressed to find someone who could top that.
Three awards and the Nobel Peace Prize should be Obama’s for life. The Nobel committee could then consider offering a new award after they have retired the Peace Prize.
October 11th, 2009 at 7:02 am
Sorry, Steve, but when the Prize Committee admits publicly the prize was awarded on the basis of the content of candidate-Obama’s campaign speeches it’s impossible to see his selection as anything but a sop to a fellow traveler, like a gold star awarded to a precocious child. Just listen to the unbelieving reaction of the newsmen at the Nobel press conference. Read the reactions of world leaders. When the whole world knows it’s a fraud it’s hardly “good news for America”. It makes us look a pathetic as the Narcissist-In-Chief.
“Grace” means compassion or mercy, not self-delusion. ‘Pity’ is the more appropriate reaction.
October 11th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Your always-attack-Obama nonsense here is perhaps best exposed by carefully considering the delightfully pro-American words of a State Department spokesperson about Obama’s Nobel:
“Certainly from our standpoint, this gives us a sense of momentum — when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes.”
October 11th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Steve, by referencing a “non-political” State Department “spokesman”, are you saying Obama got the award because of the work Hillary did? Do you think Obama stole Hillary’s thunder?
Why can’t Obama acknowledge all the excellent work Hillary has done? He got this award because Hillary was burning up the diplomatic channels while Obama got “face time” in the US press.
France thought Obama was a wuss. I suspect Hillary, being the consummate team player, put them straight.
October 12th, 2009 at 7:55 am
Steve, the spokeshole for the State Department, like all the other Washington DC bureaus, is a politically-vetted appointee, and, like the detestably sycophantic Gibbs, spins facts to please his political masters.
And I’m curious how any American can consider a disparaging reference to a former President to be “pro-American”.