0bama Wins

The Nobel Peace Prize.

The nominations were closed in February.

Was this based on campaign promises?

Justoo wrote:

The Nobel Peace Prize.

The nominations were closed in February.

Was this based on campaign promises?

That was my first reaction. For what?

Let’s take a look at the president’s first 12 days in the White House according to his public schedule to see what he did to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize:

January 20: Sworn in as president. Went to a parade. Partied.

January 21: Asked bureaucrats to re-write guidelines for information requests. Held an “open house” party at the White House.

January 22: Signed Executive Orders: Executive Branch workers to take ethics pledge; re-affirmed Army Field Manual techniques for interrogations; expressed desire to close Gitmo (how’s that working out?)

January 23: Ordered the release of federal funding to pay for abortions in foreign countries. Lunch with Joe Biden; met with Tim Geithner.

January 24: Budget meeting with economic team.

January 25: Skipped church.

January 26: Gave speech about jobs and energy. Met with Hillary Clinton. Attended Geithner's swearing in ceremony.

January 27: Met with Republicans. Spoke at a clock tower in Ohio.

January 28: Economic meetings in the morning, met with Defense secretary in the afternoon.

January 29: Signed Ledbetter Bill overturning Supreme Court decision on lawsuits over wages. Party in the State Room. Met with Biden.

January 30: Met economic advisers. Gave speech on Middle Class Working Families Task Force. Met with senior enlisted military officials.

January 31: Took the day off.

February 1: Skipped church. Threw a Super Bowl party.

So there you have it. The short path to the Nobel Peace Prize: Party, go to meetings, skip church, release federal funding to pay for abortions in foreign countries, party some more.

Good grief.

I'm blown away. Given on a promise. Yuck.

Winners of the Nobel Peace Prize since 1980:

———

— 2009: U.S. President Barack Obama

— 2008: Martti Ahtisaari

— 2007: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Al Gore

— 2006: Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank

— 2005: International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei

— 2004: Wangari Maathai

— 2003: Shirin Ebadi

— 2002: Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter

— 2001: United Nations, Kofi Annan

— 2000: Kim Dae-jung

— 1999: Medecins Sans Frontieres

— 1998: John Hume, David Trimble

— 1997: International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Jody Williams

— 1996: Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, Jose Ramos-Horta

— 1995: Joseph Rotblat, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs

— 1994: Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin

— 1993: Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk

— 1992: Rigoberta Menchu Tum

— 1991: Aung San Suu Kyi

— 1990: Mikhail Gorbachev

— 1989: The 14th Dalai Lama

— 1988: U.N. Peacekeeping Forces

— 1987: Oscar Arias Sanchez

— 1986: Elie Wiesel

— 1985: International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War

— 1984: Desmond Tutu

— 1983: Lech Walesa

— 1982: Alva Myrdal, Alfonso Garcia Robles

— 1981: Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees

— 1980: Adolfo Perez Esquivel

By JENNIFER LOVEN, AP White House Correspondent Jennifer Loven, Ap White House Correspondent – 30 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama landed with a shock on the nation's capital. He won! For what?

For one of America's youngest presidents, in office less than nine months — and only for 12 days before the Nobel nomination deadline last February — it was an astonishing award.

But the prize seems to be more for promise than performance. Obama so far has no standout moment of victory. As for most presidents in their first year, the report card on Obama's ambitious agenda is an "incomplete."

He banned extreme interrogation techniques for terrorists. But he also promised to close the globally controversial U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a task with difficulties that have Obama headed to miss his own January 2010 deadline.

He said he would end the Iraq war. But he slowed the U.S. troop drawdown a bit. Meantime, he's running a second war in the Muslim world, in Afghanistan — and is seriously considering ramping that one up.

He has pushed for new efforts to make peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. But there's been little cooperation so far.

His administration is talking to U.S. foes, like Iran, North Korea and Cuba. But there's not much to show from that, either.

He said he wants a nuclear-free world. But it was one thing to show the desire in his April Prague speech, and quite another to unite hesitant nations and U.S. lawmakers behind the necessary web of treaties and agreements.

He pledged to take the lead against climate change. But the U.S. seems likely to head into December's crucial international negotiations in Copenhagen with Obama-backed legislation still stalled.

And what about Obama's global prestige? It seemed to take a hit exactly a week ago when his trans-Atlantic journey to win the 2016 Olympics for Chicago was rejected with a last-place finish.

For the Nobel committee, merely altering the tone out of Washington toward the rest of the world seemed enough. Obama got much attention for his speech from Cairo reaching out a U.S. hand to the world's Muslims. His remarks at the U.N. General Assembly last month set down internationally welcome new markers for the way the U.S. works with the world.

But still. ...

Obama said he was as surprised as everyone else when he was awakened about an hour after the announcement.

"I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this prize," he said in the Rose Garden hours later. "That is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century."

The prize is not necessarily a big plus for Obama in the tricky U.S. political arena.

He won election last year in part because voters weary with the nation's battered image abroad were attracted to his promise of a new start. But Republicans have been criticizing Obama as being too much celebrity and too little action, and they immediately seized on this new praise — from Europeans, no less — to try to bring him down a peg.

From Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, for instance: "It is unfortunate that the president's star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements."

For Nobel voters, the award could be as much a slap at Obama's predecessor as about lauding Obama. Former President George W. Bush was reviled by much of the world for his cowboy diplomacy, Iraq war and snubbing of European priorities like global warming.

And remember that the Nobel prize has a long history of being awarded more for the committee's aspirations than for others' accomplishments — for Mideast peace or a better South Africa, for instance. In some cases, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments.

Nobel committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said as much. "Some people say, and I understand it, isn't it premature? Too early?" he said in an interview with The Associated Press. "Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now. It is now that we have the opportunity to respond — all of us."

Obama certainly understands his challenges are too steep to resolve quickly. "It's not going to be easy," the president often says as he sets tasks for the United States.

The Nobel committee, it seems, had the audacity to hope that he'll eventually produce a record worthy of its prize.

___

Matt Moore in Oslo contributed to this report.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE: Jennifer Loven is the AP's chief White House correspondent.

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.

LINK to TIME article

To me it's like everyone who voted for him got the prize, because the rest of the world is saying, "OMG, we are so glad you picked him instead of that crazy woman and the weird old man! We were so scared the missiles would be launched and we no longer have to cower in the dark praying their insanity won't kill us!!!!!! You deserve something pretty and shiny and ... and.... here.... give the man the Nobel Peace Prize as a token of our gratitude because now we don't think your President will go mad and hit the nukes button!!!"

Here is a shiny new penny. Be sure to share it.

CelticDragon wrote:

To me it's like everyone who voted for him got the prize, because the rest of the world is saying, "OMG, we are so glad you picked him instead of that crazy woman and the weird old man! We were so scared the missiles would be launched and we no longer have to cower in the dark praying their insanity won't kill us!!!!!! You deserve something pretty and shiny and ... and.... here.... give the man the Nobel Peace Prize as a token of our gratitude because now we don't think your President will go mad and hit the nukes button!!!"

In "reality", is actually...

"Who?!"

"For What?"

I hear that they're changing the name of the Nobel Peace Prize to the Seinfeld Prize because it's an award about nothing.

A friend of mine on facebook said that " because Obama won the Peace prize that the Chiefs will be allowed to win the Super Bowl"

The whole thing is just silly. Doesn't surprise me that politics are a big part of the Nobel Peace Prize- anybody with half a brain knows that. But like others have said- he hasn't really DONE anything... it's more of a "Thanks for not being Bush" prize. Giving him the prize this early has shattered any pretense of impartiality and is a step toward reducing the Nobel Peace Prize to little more than a political endorsement.

Even people who LIKE Obama can't take this seriously. The Nobel Committee has only succeeded in pissing off Obama's opponents and making him and his supporters feel awkward.

slider wrote:

At least we don't bomb now and ask questions later bull$hit diplomacy that we have had in the past.[/i]

Don't be so quick to make that assumption. They're beating the war drums for an attack on Iran. Could happen any day.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

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.

LINK to TIME article

....I agree Nitro, Greg Mortensen is great. Read his book and he is very deserving. Tho I'm an Obama supporter, I agree that Obama has yet to prove himself worthy of the prize at this time through more accomplishments. However he, more than any other President in recent history, has held out his hand in diplomacy to other nations. I don't see this as being a Kiss ass or weak, but as a strength of character and a true gesture of good will; and yes as an apology for the behavior of Bush, through his arrogance, who thought the world should fall at his feet.

This world, like it or not is shrinkng. We are more global. It's time to get past our ethnocentric behavior ....to focus less on separate races, and more on the human race. It's called evolution.

Bighead wrote:

Don't be so quick to make that assumption. They're beating the war drums for an attack on Iran. Could happen any day.

Wonder how this will affect his decision on Afghanistan?

[img][/img][img][/img]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know out of the many countries and former prize winners who participate in the nominations how many are Arabic, and brown or dark skinned verses caucasion? And aren't Nobel Prize winners most commonly what would be considered liberals? I'd wager most in the Nobel Peace Prize selection process are liberals by description.

Could it be more of a congrats on being the first black US president than anything else? If you think about all the gifts, priviledges, and token gestures the elitists have done to kiss black hineys it could be a factor here.

I do know that of the last 4 Democrat Presidents, Clinton is the only one without a Nobel Prize...

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Bighead wrote:

Don't be so quick to make that assumption. They're beating the war drums for an attack on Iran. Could happen any day.

Wonder how this will affect his decision on Afghanistan?

Don't you mean his indecision on Afghanistan?

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Bighead wrote:

Don't be so quick to make that assumption. They're beating the war drums for an attack on Iran. Could happen any day.

Wonder how this will affect his decision on Afghanistan?

I really don't know enough about the situation to have much comment. But we all know that both our military and our finances have been stretched thin- and an attack on Iran will stretch them both much thinner. The implications are obvious enough.

And as EP pointed out in his typical knee-jerk fashion, the Obama administration seems to be making a big point of letting everybody know how thoroughly he's "considering" his Afghanistan decision... via press releases, interviews, "leaks"- all the standard interfaces with Obama's media allies. Looks like a very deliberate PR campaign to me... and what frustrates me (and apparently lots of Repubs) is that I really can't figger out what he has in mind. Will he escalate, downsize, or pull out? It's anybody's guess; I don't have any unique insight here.

But I lean towards a significant downsizing of the whole operation. What other purpose would the PR campaign serve? Some would say that he's placating his anti-war supporters. But I don't think that would be worthwhile, politically. What are they going to do? Start voting Republican? The anti-war crowd is much like the gay crowd. They don't hang onto the Democratic Party because they're getting everything they want (or much at all, really)... it's just that the alternative is so much worse.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

I do know that of the last 4 Democrat Presidents, Clinton is the only one without a Nobel Prize...

Yeah but he got a "blowjob" in the Oval Office and the Republicans in House wanted to crucify him for that.

Too bad the Senate Republicans didn't believe it was that big of a deal and let it die.

But just how many of those assclowns have been caught cheating on their wives? And some of them where blowing men!!

For Obama to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize is like a slap in the face to the nominees who actually did something. Did you hear the gasps in the audience when it was announced?

Interestingly, Ghandi was nominated 5 times but never received the award.

Slider, you and EP are like the Yin and Yang. Neither of you is entirely ignorant and delusional, but together, ya'll are complete idiots.

slider wrote:

Too bad the Senate Republicans didn't believe it was that big of a deal and let it die.[/b]

I think the Republicans hurt themselves by going after an impeachment of President Clinton. All they had to do was raise a fuss, let Clinton lie about it, and then let it go. I still wonder if there were Republicans who did not want to vote for impeachment, but did so under a great deal of pressure from congressional upper echelons.

In our sex charged society all the republicans did by exposing and pursuing the scandal about Lewinski bobbing on Willie's willy did was create a hero and make him look more like his womanizing idol JFK.

I still think Obama getting the Nobel was liberal elitists way of saying look at our sparkling new black trophy in the White House.

Still can't believe you guys and all of the talking heads are so "butt-hurt" by this.

Can you explain what he did do to deserve this? I can't.

Justoo wrote:

Can you explain what he did do to deserve this? I can't.

I guess not being a republican and being a black US socialist is all it takes. Unless giving slider a woody counts for something.

Ratzilla wrote:

Justoo wrote:

Can you explain what he did do to deserve this? I can't.

I guess not being a republican and being a black US socialist is all it takes. Unless giving slider a woody counts for something.

BO is slider's government healthcare alternative to Viagra.

Ok, that's it. I can no longer support Ron Paul. The guy is nothing more than a political mirror- people look at his uncompromising and impracticable idealism and see themselves. Just look at the list of people on this board alone who all, to some extent, supported Ron Paul- whether or not they actually voted for him.

BIGHEAD
EP
Slider
Underestimated Prophet
Ratzilla

It's fuccking ridiculous. EP and Slider are polar opposites, and I think they're BOTH wrong most of the time. Though I AM fairly likely to agree with UP or Ratzilla (except for his control issues ) on a given topic.

Nope... no more Ron Paul for me.

Justoo wrote:

Can you explain what he did do to deserve this? I can't.

I almost forgot.

Bighead wrote:

EP and Slider are polar opposites, and I think they're BOTH wrong most of the time. Though I AM fairly likely to agree with UP or Ratzilla (except for his control issues ) on a given topic.

Nope... no more Ron Paul for me.

You call parents knowing what their 12 year olds do and having a say about it control. You call not wanting laws that go against one gender or race to favor another control. I call it sanity. Other than that, we do agree on quite a few topics. Though I don't hate cops as much. Some of em are pretty decent.

Ratzilla wrote:

Bighead wrote:

EP and Slider are polar opposites, and I think they're BOTH wrong most of the time. Though I AM fairly likely to agree with UP or Ratzilla (except for his control issues ) on a given topic.

Nope... no more Ron Paul for me.

You call parents knowing what their 12 year olds do and having a say about it control. You call not wanting laws that go against one gender or race to favor another control. I call it sanity. Other than that, we do agree on quite a few topics. Though I don't hate cops as much. Some of em are pretty decent.

WTF are you talking about?

I've complained that some laws are used as a tool by women to attack men, such as the double standard laws that will charge a man with homicide for killing the same fetus that woman say they should have the right to kill. You seem to think that two faced policy is ok. My apologies if I misunderstood that.

But in general it seems that you don't like laws that give men any say over womens affairs, but don't mind if women use laws to stick it to men. I'm only about control when it makes good sense. I don't support laws that put women in servitude to men, nor laws that give women biased powers over men.

We don't disagree that the laws in question are contradictory- we only disagree in how the contradictions should be addressed. I agree that in too many cases, laws "stick it to men" as you so eloquently put it- and I'd be all for changing that (in the case of fetus homicides as you mentioned- also in family law). Thing is, since I don't have control issues, I don't see any need to address said contradictions by controlling women. I would simply change the law so that it doesn't "stick it to men".

That's because I prefer 'freedom'. Some don't.

And yes, as I recall- you have advocated laws that put women in servitude to men. Didn't you once suggest that a man should be allowed to veto a woman's right to an abortion?

Still not sure what you were talking about when you brought up race. You might be assuming that I've made wholesale changes in my politiks seeings how I voted for Obama... but that isn't the case.

I said I think a man has a right to an opinion on abortions in certain cases. A one night stand, no. But in the case of a long term relationship or especially a marriage, I do feel the man should have a say in an abortion.

I also think abortions should be reserved for emergency situations. I, and alot of women agree, that having multiple abortions just because someone wants to be an irresponsible slut is not right. I don't see where either of those opinions equates to putting women in servitude.

And that's where we differ.

But I think we both agree that what you call "two faced policies" are bullshit.

How did this topic stray from BO getting an award that he doesn't deserve to abortion rights?

The Other One wrote:

How did this topic stray from BO getting an award that he doesn't deserve to abortion rights?

Slider brought up Ron Paul, Bighead then described those on the forum who liked Ron and he got off on his thing about how he thinks I want to "control" others I disagree with again. Apparently he equates my desire to see sensible rules and parental rights as putting women and kids in shackles under the crack of a whip. It seems he prefers anarchy.

Heard he is a shoe-in for the Heisman.

Justoo wrote:

Heard he is a shoe-in for the Heisman.

He's a roundballer. He'll certainly get the Naismith and the NBA MVP, too.

I bet Obama has this one in the bag too.

http://www.wxnetwork.com/top100_index.aspx

Ratzilla wrote:

The Other One wrote:

How did this topic stray from BO getting an award that he doesn't deserve to abortion rights?

Slider brought up Ron Paul, Bighead then described those on the forum who liked Ron and he got off on his thing about how he thinks I want to "control" others I disagree with again. Apparently he equates my desire to see sensible rules and parental rights as putting women and kids in shackles under the crack of a whip. It seems he prefers anarchy.

So basically it's slider's fault, with Bignose's help.

The Other One wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

The Other One wrote:

How did this topic stray from BO getting an award that he doesn't deserve to abortion rights?

Slider brought up Ron Paul, Bighead then described those on the forum who liked Ron and he got off on his thing about how he thinks I want to "control" others I disagree with again. Apparently he equates my desire to see sensible rules and parental rights as putting women and kids in shackles under the crack of a whip. It seems he prefers anarchy.

So basically it's slider's fault, with Bignose's help.

Glad I could help

It's almost time for the nominations to open for 2010. My guess is that they give BO the repeat, with the 3-peat coming in 2011.

Good thing for Mark Ingram that BO was out of the country on Saturday night.