Nobel Peace Prize Awarded To President Obama!
The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that “Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”
Oslo, October 9, 2009
Remember how the wingnuts were celebrating the awarding of the Olympics to Rio because that meant the world was rejecting Obama? I wonder what they’ll be saying today? I think this is a big surprise but I hope it puts a highlight on the great, early foreign policy successes of the Obama administration – namely the deal with Russia on the missile shield and the deal with Iran on nuclear enrichment. Obama has already had more foreign policy success in 9 months than Bush had in his entire 8 years.
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 9 October 2009 at 6:24 am:
Read all about the nomination process for the Nobel Peace Prize here.
Comment by Rhymes With Right on 9 October 2009 at 6:34 am:
Absurd and obscene — after a career as a do-nothing state legislator and absentee Senator, Obama had no significant accomplishments as of the close of nominations on February 1, 2009 (a mere 11 days after his inauguration). For that matter, he has had no significant accomplishments in his entire time as president.
The Nobel Prize has officially jumped the shark.
Comment by Omar on 9 October 2009 at 7:18 am:
They have already announced the 2010 winner: the Gosselins’ divorce court judge.
Comment by MJ on 9 October 2009 at 7:29 am:
I’m waiting for the wingnuts (RWR included) to accuse the Nobel Committee of being a bunch of socialists. I guess RWR and those folks down in TexASS didn’t read the committee’s citation and reasoning for awarding the prize. Congratulations, Mr. Presidents. Suck it, Rush, Glenn, and RWR!
Comment by mikeb302000 on 9 October 2009 at 7:34 am:
Wonderful news.
Comment by Delaware Dem on 9 October 2009 at 7:45 am:
I understand the reasoning of the committee in rewarding the focus on renewed diplomacy and a reproach our country is taking toward the Arab and Muslim worlds, but I also understand critics of this award to the President in that he might not have yet earned it. So I was surprised when I heard the news this morning.
I congratulate the President. It is a proud moment for his Administration and for America.
Comment by Geezer on 9 October 2009 at 7:46 am:
Teh conservatives will do what they always do to things they don’t understand: They will mock it.
What I don’t understand: How a Peace Prize winner can be contemplating a troop buildup in Afghanistan.
Comment by Delaware Dem on 9 October 2009 at 7:51 am:
Agree, Geezer, on your last point.
Here is what the committee said on Oct. 7, 2008 when asking for nominations:
Interesting. So the committee wanted the award to have influence in bringing peace. That is why Obama won.
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 9 October 2009 at 8:11 am:
Yes, I was quite surprised to hear this. In the light of what DD found, it makes sense. It looks like the Peace Prize Committee is saying that they approve of what Obama is doing and they are awarding this prize hoping it will help him accomplish it. Apparently two other sitting presidents have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Woodrow Wilson (for post-WWI reconstruction efforts and the League of Nations) and Teddy Roosevelt, for his efforts to bring peace between Russia and Japan. No American president has ever been awarded the prize in his first year as president. It’s quite extraordinary.
The wingnuts are no doubt fuming because it does help to highlight Obama’s other accomplishments in office and argues against their talking point that Obama is unaccomplished. It will be interesting when the Republicans put up 18-month governor, quitter and person of little accomplishment Sarah Palin against President Obama.
Comment by Progressive Mom on 9 October 2009 at 8:13 am:
Did anyone hear all those popping sounds during the night…the sounds of right-wing heads exploding?
The right has not agreed with the Nobel Committee when it comes to their fellow citizens and this prize (except for Kissinger). They went nuts after Gore; they mock Carter routinely for his win; and Martin Luther King wasn’t their favorite person when he won in 1964.
So all the screaming on the boards and in the media this weekend is just more of the same. We’ll have to hear about how Obama hasn’t done anything from the people who are working very hard to make sure he can’t.
Just like Obama didn’t get to pick the Olympic City, Republicans don’t get to pick the Nobel Prize.
Let the wild rumpus start!
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 9 October 2009 at 8:18 am:
Yes, PM, I’m going to sit back and enjoy the day.
You know Republicans now try to claim that MLK, Jr. would have been a Republican.
Comment by anon on 9 October 2009 at 8:19 am:
What I don’t understand: How a Peace Prize winner can be contemplating a troop buildup in Afghanistan.
Peacemaking != pacifism.
Comment by Not Brian on 9 October 2009 at 8:21 am:
I am anything but a wingnut conservative. I have been scratching my head about this all morning. What tiny bit of legitimacy this award has just vanished.
This is a slap in the face to people who are actually working toward peace in places around the world. This is a slap in the face to all civilians impacted by our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I wonder exactly how many men, women, and children will die by military force today to commemorate it?
Absurd.
Comment by Not Brian on 9 October 2009 at 8:22 am:
And for all you gloating ‘liberals’ you should be ashamed.
Comment by anon on 9 October 2009 at 8:23 am:
I think the subtext is that the award belongs to the American people for ending the neocon foreign policy that was wreaking havoc in the world.
Actually I would rather have seen the award go to a peacemaker in the Muslim world. I don’t know of any candidates but that is probably due to my ignorance.
Comment by Kilroy on 9 October 2009 at 8:27 am:
This is a very sad day for the Nobel Peace Prize!!!!!! I see it nothing more than rewarding Obama for being the first African-American president. I voted for Obama because he was a man with a vision for change. His election was a big step for sake civil rights but he has not earn the award as a man.
“had no significant accomplishments as of the close of nominations on February 1, 2009 (a mere 11 days after his inauguration).”
I agree!
Comment by PBaumbach on 9 October 2009 at 8:31 am:
let’s not forget Krugman’s Nobel prize in Economics, and (then ex-president) Jimmy Carter’s Nobel peace prize.
I hear that the wingnuts are going to rewrite the Nobel rules and form the committee to make the award decisions in Joe Wilson’s office in South Carolina (the heart of the real America), rather than some socialist European country.
I hear that they are going to rename their prizes the Ignobel Prize.
Comment by anon on 9 October 2009 at 8:37 am:
Obama has reversed the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war. That is one hell of an achievement in world peace.
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 9 October 2009 at 8:38 am:
There’s already Ig Nobel prizes. They are quite amusing (see last weekend’s open thread).
I don’t understand why I should feel ashamed. I’m glad that the world is recognizing his diplomatic approach and is awarding it. This award wasn’t for pacifism, it was for diplomacy. Woodrow Wilson was president during WWI, are people saying that he shouldn’t have been awarded the prize for his efforts with the League of Nations?
Comment by anonone on 9 October 2009 at 8:51 am:
Saving the world from McInsane and Palin is justification enough.
Comment by Delaware Dem on 9 October 2009 at 8:55 am:
Knock it off, Not Brian. I said it is understable for critics to think this is premature, but what is shameful is seeing the critics go overboard in their overreaction. I should be ashamed? For what?
Comment by anonone on 9 October 2009 at 9:02 am:
It seems preposterously odd to me when people like Kilroy express the view that getting elected President of The United States of America is not a significant accomplishment.
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 9 October 2009 at 9:05 am:
The election of Obama has reversed 8 years of horrible foreign policy by the Bush administration. Obama has already accomplished more in his 9 months than Bush did in 8 years. Who is president of the U.S. is important, not just to the U.S., but to the rest of the world. The U.S. went from #7 most admired country to #1 in just one year. Obama has had that extraordinary of an effect. I don’t see why this shouldn’t be honored.
Comment by Liberal Elite on 9 October 2009 at 9:16 am:
“And for all you gloating ‘liberals’ you should be ashamed.”
Nah… I’m going to gloat some more instead. (gloat) (gloat) (gloat)
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 9 October 2009 at 9:18 am:
Here’s an early round-up of conservative reaction – they are not happy.
The Taliban isn’t happy.
Comment by cassandra m on 9 October 2009 at 9:23 am:
Usually the prize that causes lots of head scratching and debate is the Literature Prize. But these Peace Prizes typically reflect European aspirations for peace and accomplishment — and this one is something of a piece with the one given to Mohammed el-Baradei. el-Baradei is an accomplished man certainly, but was certainly meant to tweak the belligerent Bushies and the coalition of the willing. If you pay attention to what the Nobel people and some of the past awardees have to say, you can see the aspirational nature of this award pretty clearly.
Comment by Donviti on 9 October 2009 at 9:42 am:
Indefinite detentions.
Wants to extend sunsetting patriot act provisions
Guantanomo still open and no signs of going anywhere
bombing in Pakistan killing civilians
Still in Iraq, with very large footprint.
Afghanistan increase in troops.
Not doing anything about torture
War is Peace
Comment by cassandra m on 9 October 2009 at 9:43 am:
TPM has a smart take on the award this AM.
Comment by liberalgeek on 9 October 2009 at 9:58 am:
First, Barack Obama did not lobby for this, so there is no need for shame here. I have two beautiful kids despite my hideous appearance, should I be ashamed of this? No. I should be happy that I have them.
There is plenty that needs to be done, and I am not satisfied with some of the choices that Obama has made, but there is no denying that his election sent a message from the people of the US to the rest of the world. It was a message of peace through engagement. To become the President of George Bush’s United States on that platform is an accomplishment in and of itself.
I guess it is hard for the wingnuts to love America anymore.
Comment by RICO on 9 October 2009 at 10:11 am:
LA Times ^ | October 8, 2009 | By Mark Silva
[snip] In his 1895 will, Alfred Nobel stipulated that the peace prize should go “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses.” The prize is awared by a five-member member committee elected by the Norwegian Parliament. The committee has taken a wide interpretation of Nobel’s guidelines, expanding the prize beyond peace mediation to include efforts to combat poverty, disease and climate change.
Comment by anon on 9 October 2009 at 10:19 am:
the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations
Obama
the abolition or reduction of standing armies
No real candidates this year
and the formation and spreading of peace congresses
Obama
Two out of three for the win!
Comment by nemski on 9 October 2009 at 10:21 am:
The wingnuts weren’t happy when the following people were awarded the Nebel Peace Prize:
Martin Luther King Jr. (1964)
Jimmy Carter (2002)
United Nations (2003)
Al Gore (2007)
And we know that they don’t pay any attention to the Science prizes.
Comment by cassandra_m on 9 October 2009 at 10:22 am:
What is fun about the wingnuts pulling out the words of Alfred Nobel is that you can take a look at the winners of most of the recent peace prizes and not find one who meets those criteria. The Nobel committee has pretty much expanded on Alfred Nobel’s vision a really long time ago.
That expansive vision, however, still means that there isn’t a wingnut or teabagger alive who will ever get one.
Comment by Scott P on 9 October 2009 at 10:25 am:
RICO’s just mad that it didn’t go to the person who really earned it. You know, my Uncle’s boss’s cousin’s caddy’s buddy’s hooker said that it was really Bill Ayers who did all of Obama’s diplomatic work.
Comment by delacrat on 9 October 2009 at 10:30 am:
Thugs like Henry Kissinger and Menachem Begin are also Nobel Peace Laureates.
Comment by anon on 9 October 2009 at 10:36 am:
Thugs like Henry Kissinger and Menachem Begin are also Nobel Peace Laureates.
They were awarded the prize for their good works, not for their misdeeds. That is the point of the prize.
Comment by RICO on 9 October 2009 at 10:39 am:
The nominations were due to the committee on Feb. 1, and the president took office on Jan. 20. Did our president do enough for world peace in 264 hours to deserve even nomination let alone to win the award?
Comment by Geezer on 9 October 2009 at 10:45 am:
Anyone can nominate anyone, RICO.
I’m not thrilled by this, but gloating by Obama haters is still out of bounds.
Republicans won’t be happy until they institute a War Is Peace Prize.
Comment by Delaware Dem on 9 October 2009 at 10:47 am:
RICO, the decision was not made on February 1. That is just the deadline for the nominations. Plus, your point is irrelevant. It is obvious that this award is being made for aspirational purposes. Of course the award is premature considering what the President has done so far.
Comment by pandora on 9 October 2009 at 10:48 am:
Sorry, Geezer, hating Obama is all they got. I can’t even work myself up over their tantrums anymore. Tiresomely predictable – geez, is there anything worse to be?
Comment by Delaware Dem on 9 October 2009 at 10:48 am:
Yeah, John Bolton and George W. Bush were nominated for this award. Indeed, I think Bush was nominated each year of his presidency. Anyone can nominate anyone, and usually the nominee is the last to know.
Comment by liberalgeek on 9 October 2009 at 11:04 am:
Actually, I’m going to nominate Obama again next year and hope that he will be the first Peace Prize winner to successfully defend his prize.
Repeat in 2010!
Comment by nemski on 9 October 2009 at 11:08 am:
Obama has a better chance of repeating than the Phillies do.
Comment by Delaware Dem on 9 October 2009 at 11:09 am:
Boooo Nemski.
Comment by RICO on 9 October 2009 at 11:09 am:
Qualified Nominators
The right to submit proposals for the Nobel Peace Prize shall, by statute, be enjoyed by:
1. Members of national assemblies and governments of states;
2. Members of international courts;
3. University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes;
4. Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
5. Board members of organizations who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
6. Active and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; (proposals by members of the Committee to be submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after February 1) and
7. Former advisers appointed by the Norwegian Nobel Institute.
The Nobel Peace Prize may also be awarded to institutions and associations.
(so much for “anyone can nominate anyone”)
Comment by nemski on 9 October 2009 at 11:11 am:
DD, I put the smiley on it — does that count? I’m just very very very tired of the haters. It’s sad that is all they have.
Comment by Belinsky on 9 October 2009 at 11:19 am:
No worse than Jimmy Rollins winning MVP in ‘07. In fact, lots better.
Comment by Kilroy on 9 October 2009 at 11:19 am:
Comment by anonone
“It seems preposterously odd to me when people like Kilroy express the view that getting elected President of The United States of America is not a significant accomplishment.”
For a Nobel Peace Prize ? George Bush took out a dictator in Iraq who killed his own people ! George Bush took the fall for Clinton re: 9-11 ! Ronald Regan torn down a wall! Jason Scott built the most successful blog in Delaware only to be boned by his peers! Rep Greg Lavelle and Sen Copeland sent the stage for online checkbooks for public schools! Pandora pretty much told Manning to kiss her ass! Mike Matthews loss 100 pounds !
I ask other then being elected what did Obama accomplished (no significant accomplishments as of the close of nominations on February 1, 2009 (a mere 11 days after his inauguration). in 11 days? Now don’t get me wrong he may end up being the best president we had but be for real!
Comment by Donviti on 9 October 2009 at 11:19 am:
apparently politics is infested with politicians
Comment by Geezer on 9 October 2009 at 11:20 am:
“professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology;”
I realize these requirements eliminate you and those of your ilk, but that’s a pretty enormous number of people right there. You really want to find out who did the nominating them so you can direct your not-very-bright criticism towards him or her?
You’re just a fuckstick, pure and simple. And no, that’s not my argument against you, just an observation. Trolling blogs is a fuckstick’s game.
Comment by Geezer on 9 October 2009 at 11:27 am:
Kilroy, you’re as stupid as I always suspected.
“George Bush took out a dictator in Iraq who killed his own people !”
After killing his own people as governor of Texas, along with killing about 100,000 Iraqis and turning 2 million more into refugees. Nice work, there.
“George Bush took the fall for Clinton re: 9-11″
As wrong as it’s possible to be. Clinton directed attention towards terrorism; Bush dropped the ball the month before the attack.
“Ronald Regan torn down a wall!”
Again, bullshit. This is conservative revisionist history; the speech was widely ignored at the time, and the wall came down years after Reagan left office.
This is why very few people listen to your attitude about schools — you get so much wrong, why would anyone believe you’re right about anything?
Comment by Kilroy on 9 October 2009 at 11:34 am:
Comment by Geezer
“Kilroy, you’re as stupid as I always suspected.” Not so because I wasn’t responding to you and you took my stupid bait! Bush fucked us all for many years to come!
“This is why very few people listen to your attitude about schools — you get so much wrong, why would anyone believe you’re right about anything?”
Come on now be nice ! Schools are failing because of smart people running them and idiots like me have the balls to confront them.
Comment by Kilroy on 9 October 2009 at 11:38 am:
Obama did nothing to earn this award however, he should certianly take with all pride and I am sure he’ll be humble enough to honor it and achieve what it was awarded for.
Comment by Geezer on 9 October 2009 at 12:06 pm:
Sorry, Kilroy. You’ve argued so many crazy things over the years I didn’t recognize it as satire. My bad.
Comment by Brian Shields on 9 October 2009 at 12:14 pm:
Meh. I think it is premature. End one of the two wars he presides over and we can talk about rewarding Peace.
Comment by RICO on 9 October 2009 at 12:48 pm:
geezer, time to take your ritalin.
Comment by Kilroy on 9 October 2009 at 1:12 pm:
No problem Geezer and I must stay crazy to maintian my trade mark.
Comment by RICO “geezer, time to take your ritalin.” No, I think he should go straight to 3-(2-chloro-10H-phenothiazin-10-yl)-N,N-dimethyl-propan-1-amine. Jusk joking Geezer
Comment by arthur on 9 October 2009 at 2:23 pm:
See, kinda like awarding Cliff Lee NLDS MVP honors now.
Comment by PBaumbach on 9 October 2009 at 3:29 pm:
Obama has worked for a nuclear-arms-free-world since his college days. In his years in the US Senate, he worked with Republican Senator Richard Lugar to advance this mission. He has, through his hard work, ascended to the presidency of the US, where he can continue to advance this mission.
Don’t get sucked into the wingnut’s false frame that Obama accomplished nothing prior to 1/20/2009.
Comment by Kilroy on 9 October 2009 at 3:38 pm:
It is what it is and perhaps it’s a good thing! Obama now has to live up to this honor and perhaps it would push him to obtain those goal.
All and all Obama has move the civil rights ball forward and there can be no excuse as to what minorities can achieve.
It’s really not worth the energy to be divided over such an event. I just hope to hell he doesn’t somehow win the Congressional Medal of Honor !
for Geezeer.