Bill Moyers Tells a Tale of Two Quagmires: Vietnam & Afghanistan | "Once again, the loudest case for enlarging the war is being made by those who will not have to fight it..."
John Nichols
16 Comments
Posted at 9:34 ET
Palin as the Church Lady | Going Rogue book tour brings passive-aggressive rightwing Christianity to the fore.
Leslie Savan
77 Comments
Slacker Friday | The "Second Amendment" sale; the raving paranoids of the right.
Eric Alterman
An Alternative to Escalation in Afghanistan | President Obama is expected to make a decision regarding his Afghanistan strategy after Thanksgiving.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
69 Comments
Chongqing: Socialism in One City | China is managing the most important event in the world: the urbanization of half a billion people. Fast.
Robert Dreyfuss
204 Comments
Toward Copenhagen | A guide to joining the movement against climate change.
Peter Rothberg
61 Comments
RSS
I think "He needs to get his ass in gear" isn't being too disrespectful. Veto legislation without a public option, and be man enough to end those two wars that the idiot child Bush left us with. Then he can put the Peace Prize on his mantle. Until then he should keep it in storage.
Posted by ficheye at 10/9/2009
His vision is truly different and amazing for a US President. He will achieve great things. He's already achieved a lot on a subtle level. His critics will never let up no matter what. When a great and good personality arises so do his enemies.
Posted by scott-s at 10/9/2009
It's absurd. How many innocent civilians have been killed by US forces in afghanistan this year? Does that look like the work of a Nobel Peace laureate?
Posted by roberto8ag at 10/9/2009
The options on this poll are really narrow. I can think it's ridiculous without making a statement about the war. I can think it's well deserved without thinking that he is at some standard above anyone before him. I can think it's surprising without imposing my expectations on his conscience.
And where is the "who cares about the nobel peace prize box"?
This poll gets an "F".
Posted by ericwatson at 10/9/2009
I always thought this prize is more for those who advance the cause for peace...the expectation is not for someone to wave a magic wand and achieve it.
The ongoing wars are troubling...but Obama did not start those. He did, however, resurrect the drive to rid the world of all nuclear weapons. When is the last time we heard a president speak seriously about eliminating all nukes...ours and theirs? And the methodical way he moved his pieces into place to put Iran in check at the U.N. shows this guy has the smarts to make progress toward this goal.
Posted by mdetrano at 10/9/2009
Being honored with this award is due to the HUGE difference in tone since the end of the previous presidential regime, in part. Does President Obama deserve this prize? I believe, yes. Will he remain deserving of it? Time will tell.
Posted by EmotionalProblems at 10/9/2009
It is a great reflection on the man and the nation he leads.
Posted by geotenn at 10/9/2009
Looks to me like the neocons have infiltrated the Nobel Selection Committee. War with Iran is their immediate goal and keeping the Obama hysteria well fueled is the perfect way to deflect criticism of 'their guy' until it's a fait accompli.
Posted by DejaVu at 10/9/2009
Perhaps the best interpretation of this controversial decision is that the Nobel Committee is attempting to inspire Obama to better deeds on the world stage (or shame him into them). Aside from fine rhetoric, he has thus far contributed extremely little. A few examples where deeds are needed: He should resist the temptation to further escalate the Afghan War and instead bring the troops home. Likewise end the US occupation of Iraq (with no long-term bases or other interference, please). He should also stop killing innocent civilians with “surgical” missile strikes in Pakistan. How about actually fulfilling his promise to close Gitmo and go further by eliminating other brutal facilities abroad? Why not stop the policy of rendition, sending alleged terrorists to countries that routinely torture? Could American officials actually be held accountable for torture and other abuses? Can Obama be brave enough to stop his support for the PATRIOT Act? Will he work to end America’s blind support for Israeli aggression and apartheid? Will Obama stop rattling the saber at Iran and also withhold American support for an Israeli attack on Iran? Then there is the issue of human rights abuses stretching from Mexico to Darfur to China and Tibet (perhaps Obama will stop refusing to meet with his fellow Nobel laureate the Dalai Lama?). To significant extent, the president has already talked the talk, but now he must actually begin to walk the walk.
Posted by feinfein at 10/9/2009
Hoping where politics is concerned is the pastime of fools.
Posted by goedel at 10/9/2009
The BS, friends, has reached critical mass.
I know that it may sound I'm out of line,
but Pope once said forgiving is divine:
who about this Nobel gives a fat rat's ass?
Posted by WWW at 10/9/2009
Obama hasn't even earned his election yet, how on earth could he have earned a "peace" prize. But of course, when we remember that the prize has been awarded to Kissingers and Begins, the irrationale becomes clearer.
Posted by hsansom at 10/10/2009
Well, I guess he's a shoe-in now for the Academy Award for Best Performance in a Leading Role ;)
Posted by algore at 10/10/2009
It was surprising, but shows the West is still willing to accept leadership from the US. Plus, the outreach to Russia (missile defense) was hugely positive. Russia isn't perfect, still, their democracy is young and we've done well when they were on our side. Big improvement over Bush II, one the Nobel committee deeply appreciates.
Posted by Buddy33 at 10/10/2009
The Nobel Peace Prize committee needs to add a new category: the dishonorable mention, or "Nobel Peace Penalty."
Then we might have seen George W. Bush and Dick Cheney taking the Peace Penalty, perhaps several years in a row. Indeed, to my mind, this is exactly what the Norwegians are trying to express now, retroactively and indirectly, by bestowing the Peace Prize upon a dithering, centrist Democrat whose most salient virtue is that he is Not Bush.
(Yes, I heard the rumor that President Bush was actually seriously considered for the Peace Prize a few years ago. If he had won it, maybe that would have put the meaning of this year's prize properly in perspective. And we mustn't forget Kissinger, as "hsansom" has helpfully reminded us.)
This year's Nobel Peace Prize should have been awarded to somebody much more deserving, such as the Colombian Senator Piedad Cordoba or the Afghan physician and human rights activist Sima Samar, who were runners-up this year.
Posted by JakobFabian at 10/10/2009
The Nobel Price he merits is not about being saint or "walking on water", it is a very strong message from the rest of the world that for 8 years , Dick Chaney, Bush dictatorship and atrocities have violated other nations principles. Obama has stepped in and shows great progress about diplomacy ,foreign relations and bringing tolerance back on how we treat the muslims, and other cultures.
Posted by davinciexpress at 10/10/2009
The only reservation I have about having voted for the third choice is that Obama's shown only hope, not "confidence." Real confidence would have had him put both Reid & Pelosi in the once-ample pocket tailored for him, last November. He offers ostensible straws while I lust for backbone; but, as I've never won election to anything, I (barely) still defer to his (& DfA's) incremental strategy. "[F]icheye" has got it, but "scott-s" isn't all wrong -- except for the premature pronouncement of greatness. And, those who diss the Nobel must have NO idea how that award resonates among most of us. Whether it's the total relativity of "peace" or the almost-certainty of which scientist(s) 'first' nailed something more objective, it's just a fact that the Nobel also is a poll, only more important than this one. Not wishing upon any stars.
Posted by kwilner at 10/11/2009
Does changing the world's attitude towards the US count as an achievement? What about changing attitudes of one nation towards another?Yes? The Obama deserves his Nobel Prize. However, if he wants to he could share the monetary part of the prize with helping fund ways to break the hold of the coporations on the US!
Posted by pacrat at 10/11/2009
Im pretty sure that they are just throwing these things around nowadays. They probably say made in China on the back. The man has not impacted the human scene in a significant manner. What is his life's work and what are his sacrifices. There are far more deserving people who have actually bled for others in the sake of peace. Just sit back a few minutes and let it soak in . Obama winning this is just hilarious.
Posted by Raider at 10/12/2009
Well, WH(Obama) has been watering down public option from the beginning,so he can sign any bill and take credit for that.So i'm going to take my pajamas off and grow up,no vote,no support,no donations...simple.
Posted by robert-o at 10/13/2009
2 Wars 1 Nobel,that's ridiculous.
Posted by robert-o at 10/13/2009
I think its ridiculous to give Obama the prize now. It feels like the are giving him the prize in advance. I am a big fan of Obama but this does have a strong taste of political games. It takes away some of the respect i had for the Nobel peace prize.
Posted by swiddiz at 10/13/2009
http://www.rense.com:80/general87/ice.htm http://www.truthjihadradio.blogspot.com/
Today on Fair and Balanced....Webster Tarpley, author 9/11 Synthetic Terror, two prophetic books on Obama, Surviving the Cataclysm, and other critically important works, has just returned from Iceland, where he helped convince some key Icelanders to tell the New World Order bankers to stuff their debt-paper where the sun don't shine: http://www.rense.com/general87/ice.htm
Tuesday, October 13th, 9-10 a.m. Pacific (noon - 1 pm Eastern) on Fair and Balanced with Kevin Barrett, http://www.noliesradio.org
Posted by Rese at 10/13/2009
The gist of each of the 3 "choices" begs the question. Sort of akin to the way the ABC-Washington Post "poll" questions predetermine one of the outcomes favored, and allowed, by ABC-Post.
Posted by tucanofulano at 10/20/2009