Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

It seems that Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize for his performance in the first two weeks of office.  See the MSNBC report on the situation.  Were the Prize credible, the February 1st, 2009 nomination deadline would mean that the actions that Obama took to deserve the prize occurred in the twelve days after his inauguration on January 20th, 2009.  Certainly the Norway-based Prize committee did not give President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize for merely existing, for his extraordinary dance performance at the inauguration ball, or for having a general aura of what the Nobel organization might called ‘awesomeness,’ or with the assumption that his scheme to promote peace by nicely asking militant theocracies to please stop unrestricted nuclear proliferation would bear fruit.

In those 12 days between the middle of January and the first day in February, President Obama took few steps to rectify all of the world problems, but he did eat many a meal at the White House, play some basketball on the courts, and meet with his advisers daily.

Our blog want a Nobel Peace Prize, too.  So we at CRdaily are going to make a big effort to stop Iran in the next 12 days by sending them an e-mail every day asking them very nicely to please stop making nuclear bombs.  Even if our efforts are totally ineffective, and even if the nomination deadline has already passed, we should still win the prize for our general aura of ‘awesomeness.’

8 thoughts on “Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

  1. moakes Reply

    It is totally ridiculous that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. But am I really surprised? No. I guess he won it for speaking so well.

  2. ___0_ Reply

    The Nobel Prize took a major hit to its credibility in 1973 when it was awarded to Henry Kissinger; not sure it fully recovered after that? The prize committee seems to be saying that Obama won for making a rhetorical break with the Bush doctrine — that Bush and his policies were so hated around the world that Obama, simply by being not-Bush, has changed the global political climate in a positive way. I'd argue that he hasn't done quite enough to repudiate the policies of his predecessor — especially when it comes to torture; accountability for military contractors; and actually getting US troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan — but it's true he has reversed the steep decline in global respect and goodwill for the US that occurred while Bush was in office. Is that worth a Nobel prize? Apparently it is.

    • cwjones Reply

      The awarding of Nobel Peace Prizes to Yassir Arafat and Al Gore didn't help its credibility either.

    • ___0_ Reply

      No, my point is that Kissinger is a vile person who was intimately involved in policy-making that lead to things like the US "secret" bombing of Cambodia (estimated 600,000 dead) and the subsequent US support of Pol Pot; the assassination of General Rene Schneider in Chile and the installation of Pinochet as dictator; and Suharto's invasion of East Timor — to name a few. Some of that occurred after 1973, but there was certainly enough known about the blood on his hands by that time that his Nobel award was met with much shock, including Tom Lehrer's famous retort that the award had rendered political satire obsolete.

      Nor am I saying that I think Obama deserves the Nobel Prize, for the reasons stated above. He has made a rhetorical break with the Bush Doctrine but there's been little action. However, I will admit to feeling a bit of schadenfreude at the discomfiture apparent in the right wing. Last week they were cheering the Chicago Olympics loss, now this — clearly the GOP hates the USA.

      • cwjones

        "like the US "secret" bombing of Cambodia (estimated 600,000 dead)"

        Considering that the bombing took place exclusively in extremely remote and rural areas, I find this figure to be highly doubtful.

      • Christopher Jones

        Tonnage tells me nothing if we don’t know the targets. If those 3 million tons were dropped in sparsely inhabited rural areas then I don’t see how you can claim 600,000 people were killed. 600,000. Think about that. That’s a lot of people. And we’re talking about remote regions where nobody lived. Did 600,000 people even live in the border regions of Cambodia in the late 1960s?

  3. jlcrowde Reply

    He won 1.4 mill. What is he going to do with alll that cassssshhhhhh?

Leave a Reply