Jackson Free Press

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize 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."

Read the rest of the citation.

Previous Commentsshow

I just don't understand why he would get the Peace prize. I mean, I am thinking about world peace, so should I get it?

JonOKeefe

Oct 9 2009

Anyone can comment? Even Me? I mean, the Nobel committee has pretty much said, in short, that this award is for him "not being G. Bush". They can point to and pontificate about his contributions to "world diplomacy", but he hasn't actually accomplished anything yet.

Ironghost

Oct 9 2009

From one of the articles covering the story, "Nominations for the prize had to be postmarked by February 1 -- only 12 days after Obama took office." I'm not saying he couldn't win it eventually, but as of right now, I don't see the merit in his 12 days of work. It trivializes the award in my opinion, as if it wasn't already (How does Ghandi get nominated 5 times and never win).

RobbieR

Oct 9 2009

Something to keep in mind is that nominations for the Peace Prize are due February 3. FEBRUARY 3. So eleven (ELEVEN) working days into his administration, he's nominated for the Nobel Prize. This trivializes the accomplishments of previous winners. (And before I get jumped on, keep this in mind: I love Obama. I support Obama. I'm an Obamanian, if you will. Being critical of his nomination for/winning the NPP is separate from being critical of him and his administration. If being critical of a public leader was a bad thing to begin with, of course.)

vince

Oct 9 2009

Honestly, I don't see how President Obama can win such an award on the basis of his record so far. There are no doubt others that are more deserving of it for the breadth of their work for peace throughout the world. And it will put undeserved scrutiny on his decision whether or not to authorize a troop surge in Afghanistan.

Jeff Lucas

Oct 9 2009

Some of the other people rumored to be on the nominating list have some impressive accomplishments. Check Denis Mukwege and the Handicap International and Cluster Munition Coalition for example.

Ironghost

Oct 9 2009

This has to be the most undeserved Nobel prize ever given, he hasn't done anything yet to deserve a Nobel prize.

BubbaT

Oct 9 2009

My thought: What's interesting about this is what it means the international community is trying to tell us. We've internalized and tried to ignore a lot of the abject, slap-happy craziness of post-911 Bushism in a way that the rest of the world has not. They were with us after 9-11, and we lost them. Think for a minute: 1. The war in Iraq was a mistake. 2. Our approach to global warming (not America warming, but global warming) has been to stick our heads in the sand and hope that God takes care of it for us. 3. Torture and extraordinary renditions were WRONG with a capital W. I like the way Obama accepted the award -- he accepted it on behalf of the American people and even he says, in effect, he doesn't "deserve" it. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33237202/ns/politics-white_house?GT1=43001 He said he does not "view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments," but rather as a "call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century." "I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformative figures that have been honored by this prize," he added. But the Nobel folks say that the vote was unanimous. It's their prize. I disagree that they've in any way "trivialized" their own award. I bet you within their own mindset, they may feel like this is the most important instance of the award that they've ever given. Why are they doing this extraordinary, extraordinary thing? Maybe they're trying to send us a message. They're with us again. In 18 months or so, Obama has gotten much of the world back on our side, and made it POSSIBLE that major things could happen in the way of peace on this earth. They're willing to see America lead again. They'll give us another chance to be principled, democratic, human, ethical and to live up to the American Experiment -- which has nothing to do with SUVs and micro-mansions and everything to do with whether a diverse people can govern themselves effectively while building a future for our planet. People around the world want America to thrive and succeed. They'd just really like us to stop being such a-holes about it. So the question is...are we up to the challenge?

Todd Stauffer

Oct 9 2009

I was puzzled at first. After reading Todd's assessment, I think that's probably the message they are trying to send. I just hope the backlash won't go on forever.

tombarnes

Oct 9 2009

The award is for lifetime achievement, and Obama has done nothing to merit it. It's a further debasement of an award that's already had some questionable winners. If, and that's a mighty big "if", Obama did cure world hunger, bring lasting peace to the Mideast and banish nuclear weapons with a wave of a pen, then we'd be talking. This year it isn't an award for accomplishments, this is a bribe to see things their way not in the best interests of America.

Ironghost

Oct 9 2009

Todd- the only message they sent was that the Nobel prize means nothing now, if they gave one to Obama for doing nothing.

BubbaT

Oct 9 2009

The award is for lifetime achievement, and Obama has done nothing to merit it. It's a further debasement of an award that's already had some questionable winners. Iron, the award is not for lifetime achievement. Qualified nominators are asked for submissions, a short-list is created and the laureate is selected. http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/process.html http://nobelprize.org/prize_awarders/peace/index.html

Todd Stauffer

Oct 9 2009

Then clearly it's much more about world anger at Bush than Pres. Obama deserving the award. On that basis, Hillary Clinton probably would have won the Prize had she been elected.

Jeff Lucas

Oct 9 2009

Obama gets the Nobel Prize for not being Dubya? There are worse reasons to award that prize! I have every confidence that he will earn it.

Lori Kincses

Oct 9 2009

I agree completely with iTodd. this is exactly what I thought when I heard about this and I take it to heart.

Izzy

Oct 9 2009

Has Obama ended the war in Iraq? No, we are still sending troops everyday. Has he stopped global warming? No, the little bit he has done with auto emissions and coal plants isn't going to either. Torture is still allowed under the Geneva Convention under certain exemptions, and if you think our military and CIA won't exploit those exemptions, you live in a fantsy world. So what has Obama really done to deserve a NPP?

BubbaT

Oct 9 2009

I'm offended by the word "debasement." If you'll research the Nobel Peace Prize at all, angry detractors, you'll figure out that it's given for lifetime work OR the potential for greatness. It's not like Gore had *stopped* global warming, either. What's remarkable is that y'all should be proud of this president and our country for this. But the same people who cheered losing the damn Olympics are showing their asses over this. It is also clear that many of you have no idea how Obama is making the world look at the U.S. with fresh eyes after that debacle that all of you complaining now supported blindly. This will all come out in the wash. Ugly is as ugly does.

DonnaLadd

Oct 9 2009

Gore didn't deserve his either. ;-)

BubbaT

Oct 9 2009

Ladd - yep!

Izzy

Oct 9 2009

Donna, I would be proud of him, if he actually had done something to deserve a NPP.

BubbaT

Oct 9 2009

"In his first nine months in office, President Obama has aggressively reengaged and reasserted American leadership on key issues, such as nuclear proliferation and disarmament, climate change, and Middle East peace. The President has also restored America's moral standing by implementing a timetable for the end of American involvement in Iraq, renouncing torture, and working to revamp America's detention policy. While the President has made significant progress on all of these issues, he has also faced obstacles and challenges to total fulfillment of his ambitious agenda." Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-bergmann/obama-obvious-choice-for_b_315405.html It isn't all about being macho - about acting out and bombing the first country you want to. This stuff takes years of intelligent action, planning & diplomacy and clear vision to see what we have ahead of us and take on difficult issues. People looking for something as obvious and as concrete as a full scale invasion of another country are going to be disappointed with this award. People who understand the way the international community works and thinks will get this.

Izzy

Oct 9 2009

The "Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize bashing" would be funny, if it weren't so telling: On the one hand, Obama opponents jump on him about getting a prize (Nobel) and not getting a prize (the upcoming Oympics). I.e., they jump and kick, regardless. That can lead to stress fractures, though. Ask one of their faithful who knows. He had to leave Dancing with the Stars because of them. There is a metaphor here somewhere. On the other hand, it seems like some people who are Obama supporters are bashing the award of the Nobel because they expected him to come into office and wave a magic wand. But, he kept telling us throughout his campaign that he wanted to lead "us" toward hard work and responsibility and dialogue and re-establishing ourselves in the eyes of our neighbors. Clearly a formula for peace making from a peace maker. And, his life has been about peace making. If it had not been, he could have turned out a cynical negative recluse. For he had to learn to live peaceably in a unique family upbringing and in a country still struggling to accept him as a black man. He not only did so; he excelled and became the President of the United States. I find it so very very easy to see why he got the award and I delight in the fact that he did.

J.T.

Oct 9 2009

nice post, J.T thanks

Izzy

Oct 9 2009

renouncing torture - this alone is worthy - the president of US coming out publicly to denounce torture and support the Geneva conventions, which we SHOULD have been upholding all along? That we didn't is the legacy of the Bush administration. Turning the war machine around is no mean feat - we've already come a long way, baby.

Izzy

Oct 9 2009

Thanks, Izzy. You are right about Obama's focusing on the ethical issues facing our country from a totally different perspective than his predecessor, who harmed our country in so many ways, like lying us into war. But, I think what Bush did that was the most insidious was lead from the perspective of ignorant arrogance, which led his handlers to master a new breed of hate politics, which made it "in" to hate and destroy a political opponent rather than courageously disagree with him/her and try to find consensus. The level of civility fell and the previous administration's approach to world interaction was "you are either with us or against us." Silly, stupid, degrading nonsense which certainly did little to foster good will anywhere. But, it took not a whit of compassion, integrity, or intelligence to lead by arrogantly hating the "other," which was any and everybody not in total agreement with Bush and his gang. That Obama doesn't get mad everytime somebody disagrees with him is the kind of leadership our country so desperately needs. God bless him.

J.T.

Oct 9 2009

Obama getting this award speaks volumes and is a rebuttal to the past 8 years of Dubya's misguided policies. That to me is an accomplishment in itself. To those who say the President may not have deserved this award do no see the big picture. Yes we still have to resolve Iraq and Afghanistan but we finally have a commander in chief willing to look at these and other problems with intelligence and foresight. THAT is why Obama was given this honor.

Lori Kincses

Oct 9 2009

Obama rocks! I'm sure conservatives will bash him for it, but shouldn't they be proud? I mean, an American won a Nobel prize. That's something they should be proud of. USA! USA! USA! USA!

DrumminD21311

Oct 9 2009

Agree or disagree with the Nobel Committee's selection of Obama, the prize has been awarded to many who, in retrospect, didn't fulfill their promise as peacemakers and who have been considered controversial choices, as this Newsweek piece points out. The point is that the prize is often given to those whose vision and work encompasses global peace. If anyone had achieved the goal, the prize wouldn't be necessary, now would it. As an American, I take pride in the fact that our president has such vision, and that the international community recognizes it in the form of the Nobel Peace Prize. History will prove the committee's decision right or wrong, but selecting Obama neither debases or invalidates the prize. As to why Gandhi never won the prize, the Nobel Web site addresses the question, but doesn't give a happy answer.

Ronni_Mott

Oct 9 2009

Obama could crap gold bricks (and with the price of gold what it is, stabilize the monetary system in the process) but the Republican'ts and FAUX News talking head would still give him hell.

Lori Kincses

Oct 9 2009

They're with us again. In 18 months or so, Obama has gotten much of the world back on our side, and made it POSSIBLE that major things could happen in the way of peace on this earth. (Emphasis mine) I disagree, Todd. I believe that the American people's ELECTION of Obama has gotten the world back on our side. I agree his emphasis on cultivating relationships and diplomacy hasn't hurt....but I believe that our ELECTION of him proved to the world that WE were changing our vision of what we wanted for ourselves. After all, who we elect as President is pretty much how the world views Americans. Our willingness to elect Obama and support him showed them we were "back in the game" so to speak. I think it provided the world with a different vision of us than the one they held eight years previously.

Lori G

Oct 9 2009

Former president George W. Bush had no comment on the news, said his spokesman, David Sherzer. Okay. I read the CL piece and for some reason this statement stuck in the middle of it made me hysterically laugh. Like, what in the WORLD can this man say? Not only did Americans hate him so much it started a wave of change in this country that culminated with the election of our first African American president...but the WORLD hated him so much they immediately handed the Nobel Peace Prize to the guy that followed him up.

Lori G

Oct 9 2009

Well, I congratulate our President on receiving this award. I sincerely hope his presidency lives up to the high expectations indicative of this honor.

Jeff Lucas

Oct 9 2009

From what I have been reading the rest of the world is going "WTH, Obama? A NPP?"

BubbaT

Oct 9 2009

Bubba T, International reaction has been mixed, as it has been in the U.S., as it has been on this thread.

Ronni_Mott

Oct 9 2009

I disagree, Todd. Well, Lori, I know better than to fight with you. ;-) For those of you who don't get personal e-mails from the President (thank you, thank you), here's what he's sending out via Organizing for America this afternoon: Todd -- This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009. To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace. But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone. This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better. So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come. Thank you, President Barack Obama

Todd Stauffer

Oct 9 2009

Oh that has to be the most hilarious thing I have ever read, him send emails out via Organizing for America...lol

BubbaT

Oct 9 2009

I take it Organizing for America isn't going to pretend to be unbiased anymore? :) I'm glad he admitted he didn't deserve it. I'm sad to see that he won't return it.

Ironghost

Oct 9 2009

Iron and Bubba, Y'all are too funny! Do you actually ever look into anything before you post? Organizing for America is what took the place of Barack Obama's campaign site. Per the "About OFA page": Organizing for America, the successor organization to Obama for America, is building on the movement that elected President Obama by empowering communities across the country to bring about our agenda of change. In 2008, millions of Americans got involved in the political process — many for the first time — to fight for a new kind of politics and a better future for our country. Those voices enabled a new beginning — a chance to pursue the real world change our country needs. Now it's time for our movement to rise again, stand with President Obama, and make that promise a reality. Where, Iron, has OFA ever said they were unbiased? Honestly, you're showing your typical knee-jerk reactions on this issue.

Ronni_Mott

Oct 9 2009

Jinx. What Ronni said.

Todd Stauffer

Oct 9 2009

Love this: But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone. . There will always be hate and haters, but we are a very blessed country under President Obama. Much of the world knows it, too.

DonnaLadd

Oct 9 2009

Bubba, your last comment is telling. What would be "biased" about sending out an e-mail from the president of the United States saying he is humbled for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Y'all are making it crystal clear that you are going to bash anything Obama does and root for the other side, no matter what. What's next? Siding with the Taliban?

DonnaLadd

Oct 9 2009

Ronni- Didn't need to look it up. Doesn't matter what Organizing for America is or even care what it is. It's still hilarious that he would send emails out via something called Organizing for America when he caught so much hell for being a "Community Organizer" Iron- I'm with you I might actually have some respect for the man if he had refused it, when he even thinks he didn't deserve it.

BubbaT

Oct 9 2009

Donna, ah that was Iron that said some about bias not me. No I think the solution for the Taliban is a well place atomic bomb. Peace through superior firepower. :)

BubbaT

Oct 9 2009

Just like I thought, Bubba. You saw the word "organizing" and turned off your brain. The "hell" Obama "caught" over his record as a community organizer came in the midst of a mud-slinging campaign. It had no merit then, and it doesn't now. It's a bit pathetic that you can't get beyond that and think for yourself. Most of America has moved on. As for the Nobel Peace Prize it has often been given, just as the Obama e-mail said, "as a means to give momentum to a set of causes." Look it up. Please. Learn something.

Ronni_Mott

Oct 9 2009

"To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace." —Gaius Cornelius Tacitus (ca. 56–ca. 117) There's your atomic "peace," Bubba: a desert.

Ronni_Mott

Oct 9 2009

Ronni- Really you can't see the humor in him sending out email from something called Organizing for America after be called a community organizer during the campaign? It has nothing to do with thinking for myself, getting beyond anything, moving on, or learning anything, it has to do with having a sense of humor which you definitely lack. And another thing your constant insults to people who don't agree with your opinions, especially Iron and I is getting old. Just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean we have to learn a damn thing or we are less intelligent, it just means we don't agree with you. So please get a sense of humor and you will be a happier person, I promise.

BubbaT

Oct 9 2009

Bubba, the fact that Obama was a community organizer was damaging only to people who bought Sarah Palin's master diplomacy. Based on your comment about using nuclear weapons against the Taliban, it makes sense you would think her a genius.

Brian C Johnson

Oct 9 2009

Bubba, you obviously don't know me. I have a very healthy sense of humor, and I laugh often. I also think that life is generally absurd. What I don't have is a lot of patience with people who knee-jerk into saying things that simply aren't supported. And don't put words into my mouth. I don't think you're less intelligent than anyone else. I do think you don't put a lot of thought into what you say most of the time, and you rarely back up what you say with facts. You can disagree with me all you want, Bubba, but just like you have a right to your opinion, I have a right to mine. You and Iron have a long, long history of coming here and taking positions that are little more than conservative Republican talking points. You'll never get a pass on that kind of b.s. on this site.

Ronni_Mott

Oct 9 2009

Brian- Geesh, I guess none of ya'll have a sense fo humor. I DID NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT him being a community organizer or call him one. I said I FOUND IT FUNNY, that after being called an community organizer during the campaign that he would send an email from something called Organizing for America. Sarah is far from a genius. Go back and look at my post about the atomic bomb, see the SMILIE face? it was a JOKE.

BubbaT

Oct 9 2009

And no, I don't think Obama sending e-mails out from an organization called Organizing for America is particularly humorous because I never bought into the fact that being a community organizer is somehow an evil, terrible thing to be. Now, Chip Pickering fronting for Americans for Marriage Fidelity, *that's* funny!

Ronni_Mott

Oct 9 2009

Limbaugh laughed today about how he was on the same side as the Taliban. Seriously. Conservatives continue their relentless campaign to alienate the public, first cheering for an Olympics loss and then booing the Nobel Prize, for pity's sake. It's enough to make one think you are all secretly on Nancy Pelosi's payroll. Not that I don't have my own misgivings. My worst fear is that the committee has given the award to LBJ, in 1964. Obama made it clear in his speech today that he would continue to kill as many Afghans as necessary to bring peace to Afghanistan.

Brian C Johnson

Oct 9 2009

Deserts don't rise up again, Ronni. They are peaceful places. The philosophy of war and peace is another day, however. I'm with Bubba. Relax, we're going to disagree. It's just politics. Life isn't worth all the venom and argumentativeness.

Ironghost

Oct 9 2009

Ronni- Didn't put words in your mouth, it not so much the words anyway, it's the attitude that comes across in your words.

BubbaT

Oct 9 2009

Here is Limbaugh. As an aside, only Limbaugh would claim that Reagan "saved parts of Latin America." Good grief.

Brian C Johnson

Oct 9 2009

Iron, that is so passive-aggressive. Don't go telling me to calm down like I'm a child. And what exactly, Bubba, is wrong with being a community organizer? Attitude? I call it passion, thanks.

Ronni_Mott

Oct 9 2009

I'm outta here. Got better things to do than argue with a couple of knuckleheads who think I'm being mean to them.

Ronni_Mott

Oct 9 2009

Nothing is wrong with a community organizer, never said anything was, I would find Chip Pickering fronting for Americans for Marriage Fidelity, funny too. I'm outta her too, daughter's home from college and sitting on the couch, looking at Ebay on her laptop and giving me dirty looks for ignoring her. She must want me to buy her something..lol

BubbaT

Oct 9 2009

I was only stopping in when the conversation got interesting. :) Later!

Ironghost

Oct 9 2009

Knuckleheads? Ronni, no one else here gets away with name-calling. Why should you?

Lady Havoc

Oct 9 2009

Reading this blog on the back side makes me believe I am having a bad dream in which some people seem to take it for granted that community organizing is "bad"? Do they think that helping others is negative? Or that working together with others to empower the marginalized is shameful? Yes, I must be dreaming, for I am informed herein that credentialess Rush Limbaugh says he's on the side with the Taliban. It is hard for me to believe that he is finally admitting where his priorities lie. I've believed for a long time that he was anti everything I have ever believed that America stood for. If this report is accurate, he is finally telling it like it is midst his yelling and blaspheming everything sacred. Guess lots of his Republican buddies will line up to join the organization on his say. It may come as a shock to Rush and his congregation that unfounded caustic hateful deliberately divisive rhetoric can be as harmful to the health of America as the hate-mongering of the Taliban.

J.T.

Oct 9 2009

Limbaugh is an idiot always has been, always will be. ;)

BubbaT

Oct 9 2009

Bubba, I agree with you that Limbaugh is an idiot. Please help me understand why he is listened to with such seriousness by so many Republican righ wingers. If he says jump, I know that there are folks that ask, "How high?" What is that about? Why is he deemed to be a leader in the Republican Party if he is, as you and I both believe, an idiot? Are we the only folks who have a handle on his true identity? Even people who are expected to be leaders in the Rep Party back off and don't cross him when to do so would be in their better interest????? I don't get it. If a Democratic leader had said that they were on the side of the Taliban, Fox News would replay it a million times and call in thousands of commentators to comment on it. Regular television programs would have been interrupted with a Special News Bulletin: "Mr. or Mrs. XYZ just stated on the air waves that they were on the side of the Taliban. We have reporters in the vicinity and will be bringing you further information on this Democratic statement that is rocking the political world today." Why don't they want to explore this type of assertion by Rush?

J.T.

Oct 9 2009

J.T. I honestly don't know why anybody listens to him. I listened to one of his radio shows in the 80's because everbody was talking about him and my thoughts then were the same as they are now "What an dumba$$". Never listened to him since. As for him being the leader of the Republican Party, I don't consider him as that, he's just a nutcase talk show host. I don't understand anybody thinking he is or why he would even be considered the leader of the Repbulican Party. He not a politician, he's a radio host??? I just caulk it all up to "nutcases attract other nutcases". Fox news? Who know's why they do anything they do or say?

BubbaT

Oct 9 2009

DrumminD: Obama rocks! I'm sure conservatives will bash him for it, but shouldn't they be proud? I mean, an American won a Nobel prize. That's something they should be proud of. USA! USA! USA! USA! These are the same people who cheered when Chicago lost the chance to host the 2016 Olympics. Donna: Y'all are making it crystal clear that you are going to bash anything Obama does and root for the other side, no matter what. What's next? Siding with the Taliban? Rush Limbaugh has already beat them to it.

golden eagle

Oct 9 2009

As the child of Dutch immigrants who came to this country shortly before I was born, I can remember there always being a framed photo of the President hanging in our living room, regardless of party or whether or not my parents voted for him. We always watched the annual state of the union address because, as my dad would say, it was our civic duty to be informed, even if we didn't agree with what the president said -- and believe me, there were plenty of times he didn't agree with the president at all. However, he never once wavered from his declaration that the Star Spangled Banner was his favorite song. Yes, he was patriotic, and yes, all that flag waving did get on my nerves more than once, but his point in all of this patriotism was country first, politics second. Were he alive today, I can't imagine how sad and disappointed my dad would be in those who would tear down rather than celebrate the fact that our leader,and therefore our country, has been so honored in the world.

chaffeur

Oct 9 2009

Chaffeur, your Dad and the adults I grew around had something in common. My Mother smiled with pride about their buying war bonds during WWII. It is clear that our country had a long way to go then to overcome its own internal human and civil rights issues. But, honor for the country and its President, the freedoms it brought and the hope (borrowing a word from our President) that it offered were as expected as was that I say "Yes mam" and "No sir." It was a part of the fabric of our ethics. I noticed, e.g., that John McCain displayed that courteousness yesterday when he was asked about Obama's award. And, I surely did not vote for McCain and his running mate. Chaffeur, I think that part of Obama's strength and qualification for the Nobel is that he understands what your father understood: the importance of our country in terms of freedom and honoring it and others even as we struggle with challenges to secure and maintain essential freedoms.

J.T.

Oct 10 2009

Maybe Obama won for the peace, grace and professionalism he has showed toward his enemies, the repugnant party, Glen Beck, Rusty Limpbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Ann Couler, Sean Hannity and the South which remains, by and large, the ole south. Maybe he won also because of the hope the world has for him. Let's keep hope alive.

Walt

Oct 13 2009

You don't win any other Nobel for stuff you have yet to do, why the Peace Prize? I'm gonna perfect Cheap Fusion Power in 2012, can I get a Nobel next year? Of course not.

Ironghost

Oct 13 2009

Iron, have you been paying attention? It is a *fact* that the Nobel Prize is given to support work-in-progress. The medical researchers, for instance, who just got it haven't finished, yet, either and haven't yet cured cancer. But they may well. This is the point. The Nobel Prize is very intelligent -- it is to promote progress as much as to reward it. Clearly, you and some others haven't paid a minute of attention to the Nobel Prizes until you saw an opening to bash the nation's first black president. If you had, you wouldn't make such uninformed comments about them. I don't remember seeing your posts here screaming back when Gore got it a couple years ago. Why not do some soul-searching over this, and ask yourself why you're going along with really ugly crap with no basis? Don't get me wrong: I don't think you're doing it because of race, but others are. So don't blindly follow them. Why not be a touch proud of your president? It's not like he just started a war under false pretenses.

DonnaLadd

Oct 13 2009

The Nobel Peace prize is the only Nobel prize not given by the Nobel Prize commitees in Stockholm it's given by the Norwegian Nobel Committee who's members are picked by the Norwegian Parliament. Thorbjørn Jagland the new Secretary General of the Council of Europe is on the committe and this is what he said about selecting Obama "We have not given the prize for what may happen in the future. We are awarding Obama for what he has done in the past year. And we are hoping this may contribute a little bit for what he is trying to do." That statement clearly shows they gave it to him for what he has done not what he is going to do. And again I ask what did he do in 11 days to deserve a NPP?

BubbaT

Oct 13 2009

Why not be a touch proud of your president? Ha! I sat through eight years of democrats calling Bush everything but President, I suppose you could humor someone who thinks the White House is merely occupied by enemy forces? Obama and I share no common political beliefs, that I've seen so far. It's not like I supported Bush, but I saw the raw deal he got from the media. I know the Nobel Peace Prize committee has a history of rewarding potential, rather than concrete results. Kissinger & Le Duc Tho were given it for promise, not results. It didn't work. Mairead Corrigan and Betty Williams were given one for the Promise of Peace in Northern Ireland in 1976. That worked well, didn't it? So well they gave it Hume and Tremble in '98 for what seems to be the same thing. I could ask why Carter, Arafat, the UN and others got it, but I think you get my point. As long as it's awarded for good intentions, it's a worthless award.

Ironghost

Oct 13 2009

BubbaT: Perhaps you should quote the whole thing? "We simply disagree that he has done nothing," committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland told the AP on Tuesday. "He got the prize for what he has done." Jagland singled out Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe. "All these things have contributed to — I wouldn't say a safer world — but a world with less tension," Jagland said by phone from the French city of Strasbourg, where he was attending meetings in his other role as secretary-general of the Council of Europe. He said most world leaders were positive about the award and that most of the criticism was coming from the media and from Obama's political rivals. "I take note of it. My response is only the judgment of the committee, which was unanimous," he said, adding that the award to Obama followed the guidelines set forth by Alfred Nobel, the Swedish industrialist and inventor of dynamite, who established the Nobel Prizes in his 1895 will. "Alfred Nobel wrote that the prize should go to the person who has contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year," Jagland said. "Who has done more for that than Barack Obama?" What's interesting here is that the fact that Obama was awarded the prize for what he's accomplished in the past year isn't mutually exclusive from the fact that peace in our time is also a work in progress. (It pretty much defines the concept of a peace award, btw.) You write: "And again I ask what did he do in 11 days to deserve a NPP?" That's called something in Norway, as well as in the U.S. It's a "red herring." It's a straight-up Faux News talking point that somehow the committee had to stop thinking about the award and give it based on what happened 11 days into his administration. Oh, and finally, it's worth noting that it's THEIR PRIZE. They can award it as they see fit. At least this is distracting you from coming up with something relevant to complain about...

Todd Stauffer

Oct 13 2009

Todd- I don't know how I could get a talking point from Fox news when I don't and haven't ever watch Fox news. I didn't get the qoute from an AP article so there is no first part but there is a second part, "Jagland said the committee was influenced by a speech Obama gave about Islam in Cairo in June 2009, as well as the president's efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and climate change, as well as Obama's support for using established international bodies such as the United Nations to pursue foreign policy goals." So he got the NPP prize for 1. Giving a good speech 2. Weaking NATO defenses 3. Suggesting a few regulations on cars and coal plants in the U.S. that aren't going to amount to anything as far as global warming in concerned. 4.For supporting the most corrupt political body in the world. Those are stellar reasons to get a NPP Yep Todd your are right it's their prize and they can give it to whoever they want to. I can also think they are a bunch of idiots for giving to Obama for doing nothing. :) Oh I'm not distracted by this. Got too many other more important things to worry about. I'm like Iron I just drop by every one in a while to living up the party. :)

BubbaT

Oct 14 2009

Oops misspelled weakening and liven. We really need spell check...lol

BubbaT

Oct 14 2009

It is more than sad when you really look at what is going on. Conservatives have lost their way and some of them their minds. They are constantly griping about something the President did or did not do and regardless of what he did, they claim he should have done the opposite. Conservatives could care less about President Obama getting an award or the Nobel Prize Committee, so why should they care about any interaction that goes on between the two. What perplexes me about Mississippi is how we can be soooo critical of others, "Hollywood liberals", "Northern liberals", "Yankees", etc. but when someone is critical of us, we act so offended. Look at what is acceptable in Mississippi by the people that we honor, Ross Barnett, Confederate Memorial Day linked with MLK Day, but these same folks will turn around and claim the Nobel Prize Committee is bogus for giving President Obama an award. With a skewed sense of perspective like that, I can see how everything looks a certain way to them.

Goldenae

Oct 14 2009

Iron, your logic never fails to make me say, "Huh?" So Bush got a raw deal from the media? I suppose the media should have let his numerous lies and gaffs just go unnoticed, then? Bush is going down as one of the worst U.S. Presidents not because of the media, but because of his actions. It's not like Obama's getting a pass on anything, either. Both men have their media detractors. When you use words like "enemy forces," you make it sound as if the Taliban and Al Qaeda have occupied the White House through a coup instead of that the citizens of the U.S. democratically elected a U.S. Senator. But with attitudes like that, it's no wonder that it takes super-human efforts to get anything accomplished. Seen through the lens of "enemy forces," it's predictable that anything Obama does is just bad and wrong. As for the Nobel Peace Prize being "worthless," if anyone had ever actually achieved world peace, there may be no purpose for it. Until that day, however, efforts toward the goal are well worth rewarding in any way, shape or form.

Ronni_Mott

Oct 14 2009

Oh Bubba. If I may respond to your four points: 1) It's called diplomacy. Of course, the John Boltons, Liz Cheneys, and Bubbas of this world have nothing but contempt for diplomacy. I think that's rather the Nobel committee's point. The more you all moan about this, the more it makes me think the committee was right. 2) It's ridiculous to claim that Obama weakened NATO defenses. Bush's system does not yet work, which is one reason why Sec.Def. Gates recommended they deploy an intermediate system. Note that research continues on a long-range system. In the meantime, we might be able to knock down a medium-range missile launched by Iran, which we could not do before. What was so wrong-headed about the Bush approach is that he used missile defense as a tool to expand NATO and antagonize Russia. The system did not actually work. So Obama has strengthened NATO's defenses, not weakened them. 3) Obama has not "suggested" new carbon regulations, he has imposed them. For the first time, the DOT and EPA have set a 250 gram / mile limit on car emissions. The EPA has declared greenhouse gases a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Obama is pushing Congress to reduce greenhouse gases by 80 percent by 2050. He is pursuing international diplomacy to bring China and India into the next climate treaty. These are not cosmetic efforts. Your claim that they will do "nothing" to reduce global warming is without foundation. They are our best chance of averting climate disaster. 4) The UN is not the most corrupt political body in the world. That's just trash talk. Look to Zimbabwe or the Democratic Republic of Congo for top honors. If you want to tongue the corpse of Jesse Helms, please do it in private.

Brian C Johnson

Oct 14 2009

Bubba, with all due respect, you and Obama's opponents are beating a dead horse. It's over. It's a done deal. The award has been awarded. Arguing about it and trying to downplay his qualifications ain't gonna cause the award to go away. You certainly have a right to your opinion about the accomplishments of Obama, as do I, and as did the committee. I happen to agree with the committee's award. You don't. Get a grip. Go to another subject. But, what I find amazing is Americans who would want America to flourish and peace to flourish to pounce on the President of the United States for getting the Nobel Peace Prize. He is the President of the United States, for Pete's sake. But, I think that's where the rub is. Some folks--don't know if you are in this group; I hope not--just haven't yet digested the FACT that Barack Obama is The President of the United States, can't stomach it and like an angry child who hasn't gotten his/her way, kick and scream about anything to try to take the light off the truth: President Barack Obama is the President of the United States of America. No, he isn't a candidate for President. He is the President. 4 years. Take a breath.

J.T.

Oct 14 2009

Yes, J.T., and I am so, so proud of my country for electing Barack Obama as president of the United States. My patriotism is at an all-time high, seeming to coincide with those who are so angry about it that they will make fools of themselves on a daily basis over it. Of course, one way to look at all the hysteria over the president winning the Nobel Peace Prize is to consider that they really can't find much to complain about if they have to resort to that. The president should wear that kind of criticism as a badge of honor, and I suspect he does. And I always love it when you sweep through, Brian, and mop up the floor. ;-)

DonnaLadd

Oct 14 2009

Finally, I think I understand the sophistry and talking points of Bub and Ghost, if you're not qualified to be the President of the United States of America, and you got elected due to Affirmative Action or White guilt, then how can you deserve anything else you receive? No one can fool them, they know Obama isn't qualified. He apparently doesn't have the complexion for the connection since he seems to have every thing else. History is the teacher and greatest decider of this. History got bucked, broncoed and beat down a year ago. Some folks can't stand it. I'm not accusing these two gentlemen though. Surely, they're as happy as I am to have the first black president. LOL. It shows! I have told Ghost many times he's an accidental comic. Bud is just as funny. They make me laugh every time I read their writings about Obama or an issue tangentially connected to race matters. If they don't listen to or read any right-wing blogs or stink tanks, they surely do mimic them quite closely by accident. Sorry, I meant think tanks. Whenever I get into heated political or race debates, I wear a shirt with a long collar to keep my neck from showing. I don't want anyone to see the ugly scars at least in that area. Obama will just have to hang in there like Jackie Robinson, Jessie Owens, Arthur Ashe, Martin Luther King (all trailblazers) until the times will accept them. WE SHALL OVERCOME SOME DAY. Deep in my heart, I do believe we will overcome some day.

Walt

Oct 14 2009

In re. to Ladd's: "Of course, one way to look at all the hysteria over the president winning the Nobel Peace Prize is to consider that they really can't find much to compain about if they have to resort to that. The president should wear that kind of criticism as a badge of honor. . ." AMEN!!!

J.T.

Oct 14 2009

Walt, you're reading too much into what I said. I've said time and time again Obama doesn't deserve the prize. Ladd&Co argue the democratic line "it's about promise, not results!". As for the slander, I'll ignore it. It's what I expect from you.

Ironghost

Oct 14 2009

"argue the democratic line "its about promise, not results!". Iron, here's the deal: When Bush went into office the country had a surplus; we had friends in other countries. 8 years of Republican craziness left us in debt up to our eyeballs, fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq which we entered because the administration lied about the weapons of mass destruction. Government grew huge in size (under a "conservative????" President); the financial world was deregulated that led to a financial crises; citizens were abandoned during Katrina; I could go on and on and on. It might take the democrats a bit longer than a few months to clean all of this up.

J.T.

Oct 14 2009

We were talking about Obama's Peace Prize, Not Bush and economics.

Ironghost

Oct 14 2009

Iron, I had thought that was what we were talking about: Obama's Peace Prize, not Bush and economics--until you accused: "the democratic line 'it's about promise, not results!'" President Obama has been in office for only 9 months. The reality of the MESS that Bush left our country in is the place from which results must now be achieved. E.g., Bush alienated so many leaders in the international community, both from arrogance and misleading them (Iraq), that Obama's attempts to communicate openly with the international community is actually "results" in peacemaking. I.e., he is so very opposite of Bush in regard to communicating with other nations that just that--the way he is communicating--is the RESULTS. As that type of open communication continues, other additional results can be achieved. Bashers of President Obama for winning the Nobel Peace Prize are playing Rove-type politics. Which brings to mind that Obama's attempts to treat Republicans cordially and include them in deicison making is so very opposite to the process Bush used, that even just that, alone, is peace making. Rovian politics prohibits civility and kindness and inclusion and support of anyone or anything that doesn't do exactly what they are told or that don't agree with Repubs. And so many Repubs have accepted that as a normal way to do politics. When and if that begins to change, our country can move forward. "We" can achieve "results" as a country.

J.T.

Oct 14 2009

Here's a bit of background on the vote. As for the rest... I don't know what more to say. Ya'll have bought into the democratic view of the world, so I can't shake you out of it. There's no attempt to understand my view, namely that he hasn't done anything and giving any award for possibilities is the zenith of pointlessness.

Ironghost

Oct 15 2009

Thanks, Iron. I read your piece on the link but I don't get your point, unless it is that, like Rovian politics demands, one never changes his/her mind upon receiving more information that might be contradictory to their first leaning. Which, by the way, was one of the huge Achilles heels of the Bush Administration. The war in Iraq was on the to-do list, regardless of the presence or absence of weapons of mass destruction. It's not earthshaking to me or even remarkable that a committee member first leaned in one direction and upon being better informed made a decision different from that leaning. It does tell me something about someone who would determine that the committee's decision was wrong because of that opened minded approach. It tells me that the person who believes the committee's decision was wrong prefers a fixed notion to prevail despite contradictory facts and information. And, I am not speaking of you, Iron, for I cannot imagine you ever being that way.

J.T.

Oct 15 2009

I'm not sure what you mean in the last sentence, but I won't translate it as yet another insult. You're locked in your worldview. I won't bother you with facts. :)

Ironghost

Oct 15 2009

It does not look like anyone who has commeted on this has really looked into the issue. Mississippi power is trying to bring in KBR in too build this coal plant. They are the same workers who have the contracts in IRAQ and have killed many of soliders by electrical problems. It is to my thinking that if we are going to pay the bill for this plant mississippi workers should be the first ones to work on it. Mississippi has to the back seat for to long letting out of state workers take are work and its time to stop. Yall wanna talk bad about unions only thing yall harp on is GM going under. If it wasnt for unions there would be no middle class or back bone of this country. Unions have made it possible for 40 hour work week and paid holidays. Everyone in america has benefited from the unions in one way or another.

ua member

Oct 15 2009

As if, Iron! ROTFLMAO! If that's not the kettle calling the pot black, I don't know what is.

Ronni_Mott

Oct 15 2009

I'm ROTFLMAO, too, Iron. Peace.

J.T.

Oct 15 2009

Does anyone other than myself find it ironic that only a few weeks after cheering that Chicago did not get the Olympics and after pronouncing that he wanted President Obama to fail that people treated Rush Limbaugh the very way he treated others? Also, I find it funny that conservatives are not touting their usual cry of "life is not fair" or equal access does not demand equal results, etc. Doesn't life have a funny way of coming back around? What goes around comes around.

Goldenae

Oct 15 2009

I never thought about that, but thanks for pointing it out. Karma's a real bitch, you know.

golden eagle

Oct 15 2009