OMGods !! Obama...

[ElfBane]

...has won the Peace Prize. We'll never get anything out of him now. The PP to go along with the newly aquired "leader-of-the-free-world-itis" will complete the transformation of BO into a Capitalist hack.

[Chewbacca]

It is moments like these we should feel great about our Nations and the prospects ahead for the World we create.

[SpiritWarrior]

I am dead proud. At least some still appreciate the value of peace and diplomacy.

But so quickly, and before the usual deadline, man, he deserves this.

[VulcanRider]

President Obama said Friday that he was "surprised and deeply humbled" by the decision of the Norwegian Nobel Committee to award him the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. The committee said it honored Obama for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Obama said he viewed the decision less as a recognition of his own accomplishments and more as "a call to action." The decision appeared to catch most observers by surprise. Nominations for the prize had to be postmarked by February 1, only 12 days after Obama took office. The committee sent out its solicitation for nominations last September, two months before Obama was elected president.

from this CNN article

What exactly did he do in those 12 days to warrant this? I don't remember anything that extraordinary. And if, like he said, it's more of a "call to action", doesn't that mean they're giving him an award now for what he *might* do in the future?

While the President might do something to earn this award while he's in office over the next few years, I just don't see that he's done it yet.

[SpiritWarrior]

They're postmarked at this time, noted if you will, as a possible candidate. There were multiple people postmarked on this date as potential winners. A "watch list" of sorts. If they then see in the remaining time that he demonstrates the stuff he's been talking about, they give him the award.

As far as why they gave it to him, the article just told us. "Extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". I also think it's great that he views it as a "call to action" as opposed to "I'm done now". I really feel he needed this, after all the downplaying and sometimes even ridiculing that certain people do of his diplomatic actions and aspirations.

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by VulcanRider from this CNN article What exactly did he do in those 12 days to warrant this? I don't remember anything that extraordinary. And if, like he said, it's more of a "call to action", doesn't that mean they're giving him an award now for what he *might* do in the future? While the President might do something to earn this award while he's in office over the next few years, I just don't see that he's done it yet.

Seems quite clear and totally obvious from the prize commitee this was more like a vote of confidence award rather than an achievement.

[Wolf Rider2]

See, this is why I come on here to find my news. We Aussies hadn't heard about this, as far as I know, because our news has been flooded with stories about people complaining about the Hey, Hey skit. Well, now I know something that is worth knowing about. Thanks, guys.

[Cerek]

A European op-ed perspective:

Comment: absurd decision on Obama makes a mockery of the Nobel peace prize
Michael Binyon

The award of this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.

Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.

Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.

The pretext for the prize was Mr Obama’s decision to “strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”. Many people will point out that, while the President has indeed promised to “reset” relations with Russia and offer a fresh start to relations with the Muslim world, there is little so far to show for his fine words.
Times Archive, 1973: Worldwide criticism of Nobel peace awards

East-West relations are little better than they were six months ago, and any change is probably due largely to the global economic downturn; and America’s vaunted determination to re-engage with the Muslim world has failed to make any concrete progress towards ending the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

There is a further irony in offering a peace prize to a president whose principal preoccupation at the moment is when and how to expand the war in Afghanistan.

The spectacle of Mr Obama mounting the podium in Oslo to accept a prize that once went to Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi and Mother Theresa would be all the more absurd if it follows a White House decision to send up to 40,000 more US troops to Afghanistan. However just such a war may be deemed in Western eyes, Muslims would not be the only group to complain that peace is hardly compatible with an escalation in hostilities.

The Nobel committee has made controversial awards before. Some have appeared to reward hope rather than achievement: the 1976 prize for the two peace campaigners in Northern Ireland, Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan, was clearly intended to send a signal to the two battling communities in Ulster. But the political influence of the two winners turned out, sadly, to be negligible.

In the Middle East, the award to Menachem Begin of Israel and Anwar Sadat of Egypt in 1978 also looks, in retrospect, as naive as the later award to Yassir Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin — although it could be argued that both the Camp David and Oslo accords, while not bringing peace, were at least attempts to break the deadlock.

Mr Obama’s prize is more likely, however, to be compared with the most contentious prize of all: the 1973 prize to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho for their negotiations to end the Vietnam war. Dr Kissinger was branded a warmonger for his support for the bombing campaign in Cambodia; and the Vietnamese negotiator was subsequently seen as a liar whose government never intended to honour a peace deal but was waiting for the moment to attack South Vietnam.

Mr Obama becomes the third sitting US President to receive the prize. The committee said today that he had “captured the world’s attention”. It is certainly true that his energy and aspirations have dazzled many of his supporters. Sadly, it seems they have so bedazzled the Norwegians that they can no longer separate hopes from achievement. The achievements of all previous winners have been diminished.

[Cerek]

My perspective:

The award seems premature since it is based on Obama's words rather than his actions. It also seemed very clear to me that this was an award for President Obama not being George W. Bush more than anything else. In Obama's defense, however, this is not the first time the committee has rewarded a new world leader for replacing an unpopular predecessor. Gorbachev also received the award shortly after his rise to power in the USSR.

There have certainly been outrageous choices in the past; Yassir Arafat comes to mind and the award given to Henry Kissinger and Lo Duc Tho seems to be the most contentious to date. Last year's award to Al Gore was just ridiculous and did as much, if not more, to diminish the meaning of the award.

As for President Obama, while the timing of the award might be questionable, I don't feel his nomination "diminishes" the award in anyway. If anything, it re-establishes a measure of respectability compared to last years winner.

To his credit, Obama was very humbled and gracious in his reaction to the award. That is one of the qualities I truly admire about him. I also give him credit for viewing this as a "call to action" rather than a reward for anything already done.

[John D Harris]

Let them give the prize to whom ever they want and for what ever reason they want. The Nobel Peace Prize is worthless and has been worthless since 2007 when Al Gore won the prize over Irene Sendler, here's a video.

*WARNING those who let the messenger effect the message and the truth don't even bother looking at the video* Here's a link for you to learn something without your own biases getting in the way. http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/sendler.asp