120

Why Barack Obama won the Nobel Prize

Hope, says John Parisella, played a greater role than real achievement in this year’s selection


 

obamanobelAs Canadians, we have always venerated the Nobel Prize for Peace. Among the many illustrious winners throughout the decades, Lester B. Pearson stands out for us. The award has come to symbolize what is best among global leaders and the need to work in harmony to advance the cause of peace. Many win the award after years of persistence and accomplishments. The fact that Barack Obama unexpectedly won this award less than a year after his election is stunning. Most would agree that hope played a greater role than real achievement in this year’s selection.

The American far-right will no doubt criticize the choice and emphasize that nothing much has been accomplished by the new president. But the same crowd that applauded Chicago’s loss of its 2016 Olympics bid will have to find a new rationale for this one. Last week, it was a sign the world was rejecting Obama and not Chicago, as Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh put it. Now, I guess it will be all about the world making a mistake about Obama—either that, or that the American President has yet to prove he is a real American and African emissaries skewed the results in his favour. Whatever the tirade, expect the far-right to go ballistic in the blogosphere.

That said, the message is clear: Obama has been welcomed on the international stage and is credited with changing the perception of American foreign policy. It is a testament to multilateralism and diplomacy rather than a prize for individual accomplishments. In that sense, it is quite unique in the annals of the Nobel Prize for Peace. When former presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson won their respective awards, they were in their second terms. Jimmy Carter won his prize many years after his presidency. Obama, meanwhile, has only made some promising early moves.

Still, Obama has already made some significant speeches in Europe and in the Middle East, reversed course on torture, announced the closing of Gitmo, brought a new approach to the Iraq war, opened new dialogues with Russia and China, pushed for a new dynamic with North Korea, and embarked on a multilateral approach to deal with Iran and the nuclear issue. He has also assigned full-time envoys to trouble spots like Pakistan and Afghanistan, and re-energized peace initiatives on the Israeli-Palestinian front. Of course, the results remain to be seen—diplomacy is a long and complex road. It requires patience and a desire to work within international organizations. One must favour dialogue over force without appearing weak and vulnerable. For instance, Obama has acted forcefully with Somali pirates, but opted for more gentle diplomacy in liberating journalists from North Korea. The Nobel committee is essentially saying they approve this direction and wish for him to continue.

Despite the skepticism and cynicism of critics, the award should be taken as a tribute to the American presidency and its power and influence over the pursuit of peace. America has over the years been an architect of many peace processes. It has been an instigator of many of the international organizations and forums that promote peace. Unfortunately, there have also been times where America was on the wrong side of peace and failed to live up to its promise. Now, there is hope that America is back on course. The choice of Obama this early in his term is an acknowledgement of this.


 

Why Barack Obama won the Nobel Prize

  1. Amerikkka the big warmonger of all times. Robama is a warmonger himself. His next project bombing Iran and continuing grant Israel weapons to enforce the right to destroy Palestine. Then Kissinger (war criminal) got a Nobel Prize too. Well 1984 always present and always true.

    • I am looking at it from the other (hurt by commies) side. Yes, the Nobel prize for piece is a farce. Bandit Yasirr Arraffatt (or how you spell it) got it. Carter, who should have attacked Iran after the hostage taking and went to the rose-garden to pray instead, well, he got it. Al Gore, (hell, where is your warming?) he got it. So Obama is in good company. Company of loosers. To bad for the rest of us

  2. You’re kiding right? Obama did many of these things in the first weeks after becoming president? Because that’s when the voting took place. Despite the delay in announcing the award which has allowed Obama to do more on the word stage, the voting took place long before many of the justifications listed above. Thus the questions being raised about the decision. What has he done to derserve it other thn representing “hope” & not being George W?

      • Ah so! The prize was earned for months of nothing, instead of a couple weeks of nothing. Many thanks for the clarification.

        • It is obvious that President Obama did not win the Nobel Prize because of what he did. He won it because of the expectations the Nobel Prize for Peace board has upon him.

          You can disagree with President Obama winning the prize, but you've got to admit that the guy has done more in a year than President Bush in 8 years!

          • Could not have said it better Nicholas P.
            scf ,biff,robbieand dakota are in hate Obama mode. Sad.

          • No, Obama has done nothing.

          • Well, he certainly is making a game of it in the race to swell the US federal debt…

          • Yep, deficit-wise he's already blown Bush out of the water. I suspect by the end of his term(s) he'll also have presided over the start of a far larger war than Bush ever did.

            I guess those are accomplishments… in a weird, twisted sort of way.

          • Be honest at least . Bailouts ,stimulus and the war are all things he inherited and had to deal or we had a Great Depression. So you are so dishonest on the debt stuff , it is sickening . But no one really believes this crap except Beck and other Obama haters .

          • Bush's $700 billion bailout and the war were entirely dwarfed by Obama and Congress's 2009 stimulus package. The deficit for 2009 is approaching $2 Trillion. That's an increase by a factor of 4.

            The Congressional Budget Office projects that the deficit will be at best $850 billion in 2017, if Obama's budget proposals are implemented. This estimate does not include Obamacare.

            Don't throw around accusations of dishonesty unless you know what you're talking about.

          • Bush's $700 billion bailout and the war were entirely dwarfed by Obama and Congress's 2009 stimulus package. The deficit for 2009 is approaching $2 Trillion. That's an increase by a factor of more than 4 in the deficit compared to 2008. Bush's deficits never broke $500 billion even at the height of the Iraq war.

            The Congressional Budget Office projects that the deficit will still be at best $850 billion in 2017, if Obama's budget proposals are implemented. Note that this is still twice Bush's worst deficit. Here's the whole deal laid out in a nice graph, for people who dismiss everything they don't like as "dishonest" "sickening" "crap" from "haters".

            Don't throw around accusations of dishonesty unless you know what you're talking about.

          • Bush's $700 billion bailout and the war were entirely dwarfed by Obama and Congress's 2009 stimulus package. The deficit for 2009 is approaching $2 Trillion. That's an increase by a factor of more than 4 in the deficit compared to 2008. Bush's deficits never broke $500 billion even at the height of the Iraq war.

            The Congressional Budget Office projects that the deficit will still be at best $850 billion in 2017, if Obama's budget proposals are implemented. Note that this is still twice Bush's worst deficit. Here's the whole deal laid out in a nice graph, for people who dismiss everything they don't like as "dishonest" "sickening" "crap" from "haters".

            Don't throw around accusations of dishonesty unless you know what you're talking about. Capisce?

          • Bush's $700 billion bailout and the war were entirely dwarfed by Obama's and Congress's 2009 stimulus package. The deficit for 2009 is approaching $2 Trillion. That's an increase by a factor of more than 4 in the deficit compared to 2008. Bush's deficits never broke $500 billion even at the height of the Iraq war.

            The Congressional Budget Office projects that the deficit will still be at best $850 billion in 2017, well after the financial crisis is ended, if Obama's budget proposals are implemented. Note that this is still twice Bush's worst deficit. Here's the whole deal laid out in a nice graph, for people who dismiss everything they don't like as "dishonest" "sickening" "crap" from "haters".

            Don't throw around accusations of dishonesty unless you know what you're talking about. Capisce?

          • I see i struck a nerve . The accounting of the two wars under Bush were the reasons for not breaking the trillion barrier.Your dishonesty shows , buddy, when you forget the lies used to get America in Iraq, the profits made by Blackwater and Haliburton and the torture memos. That is what is sickening about Obama haters like you Gaunilon.Capisce ?

  3. But the same crowd that applauded Chicago's loss of its 2016 Olympics bid will have to find a new rationale for this one. Last week, it was a sign the world was rejecting Obama and not Chicago, as Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh put it. Now, I guess it will be all about the world making a mistake about Obama—either that, or that the American President has yet to prove he is a real American and African emissaries skewed the results in his favour.

    No, the same rationale pretty much holds. When any real national pride or material stakes are in play, Obama is told to go suck eggs; when there aren't half a dozen other major candidates that would be seriously insulted by rejection, it's safe to shower praise on his vaguely-worded, basically nonexistent "accomplishments."

    This was a flimsily-justified final middle finger to the Bush administration, and little else; even a number of Democrats have expressed confusion and mild irritation at the problems it's going to raise domestically. It would take profound intellectual dishonesty and no small amount of partisan blindness to see it as anything but a purely political statement of contempt for Obama's opponents, or vapid adulation of his utter dreaminess – and, luckily, Parisella obliges, as usual.

  4. But the same crowd that applauded Chicago's loss of its 2016 Olympics bid will have to find a new rationale for this one. Last week, it was a sign the world was rejecting Obama and not Chicago, as Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh put it. Now, I guess it will be all about the world making a mistake about Obama—either that, or that the American President has yet to prove he is a real American and African emissaries skewed the results in his favour.

    No, the same rationale pretty much holds. When any real national pride is at stake, Obama is told to go suck eggs; when there aren't half a dozen other major candidates that would be seriously insulted by rejection, it's safe to shower praise on his vaguely-worded, basically nonexistent "accomplishments."

    This was a flimsily-justified final middle finger to the Bush administration, and little else; even a number of Democrats have expressed confusion and mild irritation at the problems it's going to raise domestically. It would take profound intellectual dishonesty and no small amount of partisan blindness to see it as anything but a purely political statement of contempt for Obama's opponents, or vapid adulation of his utter dreaminess – and, luckily, Parisella obliges, as usual.

  5. But the same crowd that applauded Chicago's loss of its 2016 Olympics bid will have to find a new rationale for this one. Last week, it was a sign the world was rejecting Obama and not Chicago, as Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh put it. Now, I guess it will be all about the world making a mistake about Obama—either that, or that the American President has yet to prove he is a real American and African emissaries skewed the results in his favour.

    No, the same rationale pretty much holds. When any real national pride or material stakes are in play, Obama is told to go suck eggs; when there aren't half a dozen other major candidates that would be seriously insulted by rejection, it's safe to shower praise on his vaguely-worded, basically nonexistent "accomplishments." Eurocrats like him, but not enough to be good for America on the count of anything that actually matters.

    This was a flimsily-justified final middle finger to the Bush administration, and little else; even a number of Democrats have expressed confusion and mild irritation at the problems it's going to raise domestically. It would take profound intellectual dishonesty and no small amount of partisan blindness to see it as anything but a purely political statement of contempt for Obama's opponents, or vapid adulation of his utter dreaminess – and, luckily, Parisella obliges, as usual.

  6. But the same crowd that applauded Chicago's loss of its 2016 Olympics bid will have to find a new rationale for this one. Last week, it was a sign the world was rejecting Obama and not Chicago, as Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh put it. Now, I guess it will be all about the world making a mistake about Obama—either that, or that the American President has yet to prove he is a real American and African emissaries skewed the results in his favour.

    No, the same rationale pretty much holds. When any real national pride or material stakes are in play, Obama is told to go suck eggs; when there aren't half a dozen other major candidates that would be seriously insulted by rejection, it's safe to shower praise on his vaguely-worded, basically nonexistent "accomplishments." Eurocrats like him, but not enough to matter on any strategically important count.

    This was a flimsily-justified final middle finger to the Bush administration, and little else; even a number of Democrats have expressed confusion and mild irritation at the problems it's going to raise domestically. It would take profound intellectual dishonesty and no small amount of partisan blindness to see it as anything but a purely political statement of contempt for Obama's opponents, or vapid adulation of his utter dreaminess – and, luckily, Parisella obliges, as usual.

  7. Parisella has lost the plot once again.

    The American far-right will no doubt criticize the choice

    Far right? People on the left are criticising this.

    I'm sorry, but I did not know Nobels came for free these days. Where's mine? I thought you had to accomplish something to get one. I guess I'm wrong. I didn't know that celebrity status was a consideration.

    Let's see…

    Obama has already made some significant speeches… reversed course on torture… announced the closing of Gitmo…brought a new approach to the Iraq… opened new dialogues with Russia and China, pushed for a new dynamic with North Korea, and embarked on a multilateral approach to deal with Iran and the nuclear issue.

    This if hilarious. There is one thing in common with all those things. They're all talk. Obama has talked a lot. He's talked about this, about that, about the next thing, and none of this talk has become a reality. Nada. And this is somehow worthy of a prize? He's won the award for incessant talk.

    By this standard, Joe Piscopo and Joe Pesci deserve the award.

    • Are you as negative in your private life . Pawlenty said it well- an American wins an award ,you say congratulations ! But you are blinded by hating Obama so much . if he has done nothing , why are you upset?Cool it ,scf.

      • I don't congratulate people for accomplishing nothing. But go ahead, if that's what you like to do, I'm not stopping you. Take it away.

    • ''Parisella has lost the plot once again.
      Far right? People on the left are criticising this. ''

      Your friend Rush Limbaugh is from the left?

  8. There is one thing for sure, Parisella shows his ideological partisan blinders on this one. Most people on the left disagree with this. The reporters on scene at the announcement were in shock.

    But Parisella trots out the usual boilerplate.

    • Moreover, in what ought to discomfit him just a little bit, a Peace Prize given for insubstantial, aspirational (and mostly political) reasons kind of devalues Pearson's in retrospect. But that's okay to posthumously disrespect someone you claim to venerate, if it's in aid of fluffing Obama's ego, right?

      • Yes, Pearson has been denigrated by this. And so has all the people in the world who really deserve an award like this for their work. They look up and see a celebrity president get all the attention for delivering a few speeches.

        • The tag team is going ballistics again . scf and avr are Beck and Limbaugh on the blogesphere. Pearson was a great person with accomplishment . Obama is a breath of fresh air . These guys along with radical right like Limbaugh and Beck are blinded by their dislike for Obama ,they would bomb Iran , attack North Korea,keep guantanamo open and bring back torture . Come to think of it –that is why they gave the prize to Obama!!

          • Don't you have an Obama award celebration to go to?

    • Because YOU, of all people on this blog, do not have " ideological partisan blinders'' ?

  9. On the bright side, this will all make a great edition of Stephen Colbert's "Who's not honouring me now?" segment.

    • And you know who is to blame for that, KANYE!

  10. To be fair to The Far Right, such as myself, the american blogs I read put it this way about Chicago: The Far Left got excited about bombings and setbacks in Iraq because it hurt Bush so lets indulge in a cheer for not getting the Olympics since it makes Obama look bad. It's a bit of quid pro quo that reflects better on The Far Right if you ask me.

    • The Far Left got excited about bombings and setbacks in Iraq because it hurt Bush…

      and because they were actually happening and getting thousands of innocents killed.

      • True… it's difficult for me to acknowledge that since I believed in the goals of it. (and the deaths due to a hopefully temporary mess were on par with Sadaam's death toll)

        But I do remember that I stopped reading one Canadian blogger I usually respected when they wrote a post about a suicide bombing that was distinctly euphoric about it as a setback to Bush. I've never read anything that sickened me so much.

    • "To be fair to The Far Right, such as myself, the american blogs I read put it this way…"

      Maybe you should seek out some different sources. You might be surprised.

      BTW, can you show any examples of "the Far Left" cheering on bombings and setbacks in Iraq? Not accusations from blogs, but actual, documented examples? I'll wait right here.

    • Here's an interesting report from a better source than Reason: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/obama-d

      I'm loving all the snark and whining and rending of clothes over this. Must be hard to walk with your panties all bunched up like that. Here's how the State Department put it:

      "Certainly from our standpoint, this gives us a sense of momentum — when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes."

    • is this true ? Did I miss something ?You dwell on his losing Chicago but you forget to mention all these exploits . Now I know you are blinded by hatred .Are you sure about the Heisman? Too early in the season .

      • Losing Chicago? What are you talking about? Chicago is still there, don't worry, nobody lost it.

  11. Obama saved us and the planet from Palin… the award, is deserved.

  12. In the absence of any clarification from the Nobel committee, it seems reasonable to assume that Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize not only for what he might accomplish, but because he managed to do what no other American has done – unite a country that has been divided along racial lines for generations. It's an example to all those nations similarly divided along religious, cultural, or political lines, and gives hope to the oppressed.

    • Has he really? I mean he's shown what has been true for a long time, that under the right circumstances a majority of white Americans would accept a black president. But is the minority that was racist last year less racist today? And are black people any less suspicious of white people now? I'm unconvinced. See on the one hand plenty of racially charged criticism of Obama and on the other hand charges that ANY criticism of Obama is racist, both of which are pretty widespread phenomena.

      As for his qualifications to receive the prize, there are countless recipients who accomplished little and were chosen for their symbolism, as well as several examples (Arafat anyone?) that were chosen in the excitement of the moment and ultimately discredited the award.

      In any case, Obama was not elected president to win the Nobel Peace Prize, and hopefully he recognizes that.

      • No doubt that racism still exists – such a deeply ingrained prejudice won't be eliminated by the election of a black president, but my point was that gaining the support of enough Americans to become president made it possible for a majority of American voters to signal that they reject it. That in itself won't change some minds, but it reinforces the creed of justice and equality for all. I've yet to see any names of those who should have gotten it instead of Obama, so maybe it was just a case of winning by default. Nevertheless, my original assumption stands – his election in a racially divided country is an example for a world in which there is so much brutality and oppression of the most vulnerable citizens.
        I think his statement following the announcement confirms that he understands fully the implications of the award.

    • …[Obama] managed to do what no other American has done – unite a country that has been divided along racial lines for generations….

      …this "unity" being exemplified most shiningly when people show up to Teabagging rallies with holstered Glocks and posters with Obama's head pasted unto a monkey's body…

      • But at least a third of them brandish posters showing Obama as Hitler. Surely that's cause for hope?

        • That's so true. They could be mean and use Pol Pot, but they take the more restrained, tasteful Hitler route.

          There's always a silver lining.

  13. Hey, John, you're supposed to grow out of puppy love somewhere in your teens. Your many posts show that you are so hopelessly beyond smitten: it's getting quite embarrassing.

    The wtf has been a bipartisan double-take in the USA, and a worldwide gasp. Even your idol said he didn't think he deserved it. It's not just the skepticism of the critics, if you could stop rehearsing your Obama-boy Youtube rehearsal long enough to pay attention.

    • First, it's Mr. Parisella.
      Second, you lost all credibility you could have have right after your ''grow out of puppy love somewhere in your teens''.
      Third, who IS your idol? Rush Limbaugh? President Obama is not Mr. Parisella's idol. He is the President of the United States and it just so happens that the President won the Nobel Peace Prize. Normally, you are suppose to congradulate someone after winning a prize of that importance. You people are always trying to bring the bad out of a wonderful situation. This is what ''embarrasses'' me.

      • Hey Nick, read around some of Mister Parisella's recent writings here, and you'll get a flavour of the puppy love in evidence.

        • I am with Nick on this one. If he is for Obama,what is the problem?He is not spewing hate like the far right .It `s a blog ,he has to have a point of view. You are so scared of Obama that he cannot do anything right because of your obsession to beat him. Parisella says Obama is now responsible for Afghanistan . I disagree-I think Bush is RESPONSIBLE . He should not have invaded Iraq and take his eye off the ball . Bush should be prosecuted , period. Didn`t hear that from Parisella.

          • MYL: "Obama has not earned the Peace Prize he just won." Hate spewn. Check!

            K: "Bush belongs in jail. Did you hear me, you hate spewing Neo-con far-right dope? I said JAIL!" Love and roses all around. Check!

            Uh, ok then…

          • MYL: "Obama has not earned the Peace Prize he just won." Hate spewn. Check!

            K: "Bush belongs in jail. Did you hear me, you hate spewing, Yes-We-Can-fearing, Neo-con far-right dope? I said JAIL!" Love and roses all around. Check!

            Uh, ok then…

          • MYL: "Obama has not earned the Peace Prize he just won." Hate spewn. Check!

            K: "Bush belongs in jail. Did you hear me, you hate spewing, Yes-We-Can-fearing, neo-con far-right dopes? I said JAIL!" Love and roses all around. Check!

            Uh, ok then…

          • MYL: "Obama has not earned the Peace Prize he just won." Hate spewn. Check!

            K: "Bush belongs in jail. Did you hear me, you hate spewing, Yes-We-Can-fearing, neo-con far-right dope? I said JAIL!" Love and roses all around. Check!

            Uh, ok then…

          • LOL.

  14. VATICAN CITY — Vatican officials issued a late press release Friday announcing the approval of the first steps towards the beatification of US President Barack Obama.

    "He may not be dead and he may not be Catholic, but this just seemed like the right thing to do," said a high-ranking advisor close to the Pontiff, on condition of anonymity.

    • Silly comment.

      • Yup. As silly as what came out of Oslo…

  15. In Obama's first twelve days, he had a superbowl party, went to a few meetings and a swearing in ceremony.

    Following which he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

    To suggest opposition to this is confined to the "far right" is to admit one is in a political coccoon.

  16. But the same crowd that applauded Chicago's loss of its 2016 Olympics bid will have to find a new rationale for this one. Last week, it was a sign the world was rejecting Obama and not Chicago, as Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh put it. Now, I guess it will be all about the world making a mistake about Obama—either that, or that the American President has yet to prove he is a real American and African emissaries skewed the results in his favour.

    No, the same rationale pretty much holds. When any real national pride or material stakes are in play, Obama is told to go suck eggs; when there aren't half a dozen other major candidates that would be seriously insulted or riled by rejection, it's safe to shower praise on his vaguely-worded, basically nonexistent "accomplishments." Eurocrats like him, but not quite enough to matter on any strategically important count.

    This was a flimsily-justified final middle finger to the Bush administration; even a number of Democrats have expressed confusion and mild irritation at the problems it's going to raise domestically. It would take profound intellectual dishonesty and no small amount of partisan blindness to see it as anything but a purely political statement of contempt for Obama's opponents, or vapid adulation of his utter dreaminess – and, luckily, Parisella obliges, as usual.

    • What is your problem?Middle finger to BUSH? Right on and I will not tell where they should put the finger.
      You like the world hating us . So instaed of trying to change the hate against us that led to 9-11, you counter by hating Obama. YOU have a problem ,avr.

    • Hey man, get a life! It's a new era President Obama wants to unveil and a less arrogant way to articulate the American leadership. You may wanna find some value in listening to folks like Beck, Hannity or Dr laura, but the reality is these individuals don't have a clue about the rest of the World, its values and its more positive outcome for the US when dealt properly. BTW, get a bit of political education: Nobel Prize Committee members or Obama are not Eurocrats (e.g. Managers at the Brussels-based UE's HQ). Anyways, you write about intellectual dishonesty: one might wonder if you're not yourself simply nasty about those who don't share your point of view. Your comments don't bring anything valuable, it's purely about scorning those who disagree with you!

  17. At least a third? So true? Then, surely you will have photographic evidence to support this claim.

  18. Part of the agenda of the right in the US, to distract from corporate influence on and exploitation of the US government, has been to keep the US on a perpetual war footing. Through the conduct of war, any attempt at domestic reforms can be shunted aside in favor of "patriotism." Will Obama change this perpetual war footing? Possibly, possibly not. There is Afghanistan, we shall see. Yes, he must be commended for removing Iran as a possible target of aggression, but it remains to be seen whether he can rein in Israel in regard to Palestine and Iran. His outreach to the diverse Muslims of the world is extremely commendable, but the mideast remains locked in dangerous tensions. It really was too early to give this award. As the awarders stated, it was to put pressure on him to deliver on his promise. That in itself is naive, playing schoolmarm to the good pupil.

  19. From New York times, Oct 10, 2009, front page story

    “Love the dude, but all he's done on the peace side of things is make a few nice speeches and not go to war with anyone else,” agreed Ibrahim Assem, 32, an Egyptian who works as a portfolio manager in London. “They are handing him the Nobel Peace Prize because he isn't George Bush.”

    Via Twitter comes this comment from someone in the state of São Paulo, Brazil who goes by the tag da_cia: “Bush launched a ‘preemptive' war. Now the Nobel Committee is trying for ‘preemptive' peace.”

    • That second comment is the better IMO. The question should not be "what did he do to deserve it?" – because everyone agrees on some variation of "not much." The question should be "what will he do in the future to justify it?" I believe that some members of the Nobel award committee have admitted that that was their intention. The Peace Prize as moral suasion rather than as recognition of any actual achievement.

      • So they should not call it a "prize" then.

          • The Capitulation Consolation?

  20. One more point about the "far right".

    We'll see in the 2010 mid-terms, whether the far right is a realistic accounting of where the critics of the current US government sit on the political spectrum,

    or whether its a reflection of where the heart of the Obama supporters sit on that spectrum. When you sit on the very farthest regions of the left, even the center can seem "far right".

    I'm thinking nationalizing car companies while decreeing union ownership in them, increasing government spending to WWII levels, and going on a world wide apology tour denouncing American exceptionalism,

    is very much loved by European socialists (like those who sit on the Nobel committee) and the far left base of the DNC, but not so much by mainstream Americans.

    • …nationalizing car companies while decreeing union ownership in them, increasing government spending to WWII levels…

      …which were Republican initiatives…

  21. This blog post is proof positive (as if more was needed) that John Parisella has nothing useful to contribute to public discussion. What an ideological hack! And not the good kind, either, (i.e. the kind that actually writes well). Y. A. W. N.

    • I kinda like this post. But plebe has just displayed what an ideological hack is by his comment . He`s the hack.And not too bright in the process.Does he read ?
      As for biff,that is far right deological hackiness talking . European socialists , apologies ….very weak arguments .You have to do better than that . Another Obama hater . Is that your best shot?Do a little research .
      Reagan ,the conservative, produced huge deficits. W, the compassionate conservative, produced huge deficits from Clinton surpluses, started wars ,tortured in violation of the constitution, allowed Lehman to collapse and allowed the economy to get to a near depression–now Obama has to correct this conservative ,Republican crap .
      So you right wingers must do better. And you will NOT win the mid terms!!

    • I am so shocked after reading your comment that I don't know where to begin.
      You disgust me.
      The use of personal insult is a lack of confidence in your argumentation. Not only do you not bring interresting thoughts to the conversation, but you make yourself look ''stupid''.

      Nicolas Perrino

  22. Kandu,

    if I may draw to your attention the NJ Governor's race (NJ being a dinstintively "blue" state) now has a Republican in the lead in the polls. Many are suggesting the Dems push to get the healthcare deal done fast is directly related to that election, as it will be seen as the political canary in the coalmine and all hope of getting bluedog Dems on side will be lost.

    That NJ is even close to a Republican takeover strikes fear into the heart of the DNC. Should it actually fall, expect talk of a conservative resurgence to increase as the mid-terms approach.

    • Biff
      Good point . It still early to predict but haelth care has to be done or you may be right on the mid terms. But it cannot be just Obama hating . Do you agree?

  23. ''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 MOMEMTUM TO A SET OF CAUSES.''
    -President Obama

    • '' IT'S ALSO BEEN USED AS A MEANS TO GIVE MOMENTUM TO A SET OF CAUSES''

      Very very debatable,

      It's a nice use of rethoric but is it really the case in reality?

  24. All the Nobel committee has succeeded in doing is finish the job they started last year with Al Gore of destroying the meaning and the significance of this once-prestigious award. Apparently now it has nothing to do with actually achieving anything with respect to world peace, it is just for blind adherence to leftist ideology and for not being George Bush. Truly sad.

  25. All the Nobel committee has succeeded in doing is finish the job they started two years ago with Al Gore of destroying the meaning and the significance of this once-prestigious award. Apparently now it has nothing to do with actually achieving anything with respect to world peace, it is just for blind adherence to leftist ideology and for not being George Bush. Truly sad.

  26. "All the Nobel committee has succeeded in doing is finish the job they started two years ago with Al Gore…"

    I'd say it started 15 years ago with Yasser Arafat. Once they got to Al Gore it had already become a standing joke each year.

  27. I rarely agree with Parisella, and I'm generally unimpressed by his articles, but in this case I can't help feeling sorry for the guy. This piece is an embarrassment.

    If Obama had any class, he'd have turned down the award on the grounds that he has yet to earn it. It would have been a huge political win for him too had he done this.

    As for the rest of us, I think we've seen the politicization of the Nobel Peace Prize for quite some time now: Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore. People who actually helped world peace…(Reagan ending the Cold War? JP2? Tony Blair in Northern Ireland?)…but who don't fit the Leftist-ideologue mold, unmentioned.

    What did Nobel say in his will? "… to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.
    I don't think fighting CO2 emissions for personal profit or making vague speeches about Hope and Change is quite what he had in mind.

  28. I rarely agree with Parisella, and I'm generally unimpressed by his articles, but in this case I can't help feeling sorry for the guy. This piece is an embarrassment.

    If Obama had any class, he'd have turned down the award on the grounds that he has yet to earn it. It would have been a huge political win for him too had he done this.

    As for the rest of us, I think we've seen the politicization of the Nobel Peace Prize for quite some time now: Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore. People who actually helped world peace…(Reagan ending the Cold War? JP2? Tony Blair in Northern Ireland?)…but who don't fit the Leftist-ideologue mold, unmentioned.

    What did Nobel say in his will? "… to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

    I don't think fighting CO2 emissions for personal profit or making vague speeches about Hope and Change is quite what he had in mind.

  29. I rarely agree with Parisella, and I'm generally unimpressed by his articles, but in this case I can't help feeling sorry for the guy. This piece is an embarrassment.

    If Obama had any class, he'd have turned down the award on the grounds that he has yet to earn it. It would have been a huge political win for him too had he done this.

    As for the rest of us, I think we've seen the politicization of the Nobel Peace Prize for quite some time now: Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore. People who actually helped world peace…(Reagan ending the Cold War? JP2? Tony Blair in Northern Ireland?)…but who don't fit the Leftist-ideologue mold: unmentioned.

    What did Nobel say in his will? "… to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

    I don't think fighting CO2 emissions for personal profit or making vague speeches about Hope and Change is quite what he had in mind.

  30. It's true, this was a huge opportunity for Obama to turn down the award.

    When they gave it to Gore, that might have been the first time they handed out the award for something that had absolutely no appararent connection to the concept of peace. Not only is there no evidence of global warming (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079… there has never been in any way a conflict that was more than superficially related to climate. It was the first time they started using the award to make a political statement.

    It's really a shame, because the science Nobels are really unique and are generally managed well (even though einstein won only once and that was not for his greatest work), so this type of thing does two things:
    -unfairly tarnishes the science prizes
    -unfairly elevates the peace prize

  31. It's true, this was a huge opportunity for Obama to turn down the award.

    When they gave it to Gore, that might have been the first time they handed out the award for something that had absolutely no appararent connection to the concept of peace. Not only is there no evidence of global warming, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079
    there has never been in any way a conflict that was more than superficially related to climate. It was the first time they started using the award to make a political statement.

    It's really a shame, because the science Nobels are really unique and are generally managed well (even though einstein won only once and that was not for his greatest work), so this type of thing does two things:
    -unfairly tarnishes the science prizes
    -unfairly elevates the peace prize

    • Excuse me, scf, but it seems to me the Peace Prize is tarnishing itself just fine on its own.

      • I agree, I simply mean that the fact that the same brand name "Nobel" is shared is unfortunate. The peace prize should be turfed from the family.

        • terrorists.

  32. After eight hard years of decay and decline, the Nobel committee said thank God we have someone who can pronounce "NUCLEAR" properly in the White House.

    Of course, this really was never about Mr. Obama per se. This was about demarcating the ideologues who allowed the American nation to be attacked by terrorists, wage two failed wars, allow an American city to be nearly destroyed by neglect, preside over two recessions, have the entire global economy nearly collapse due to their crony-capitalist mantra, increase global terrorism and religious extremism, exacerbate nuclear proliferation, and condemn humanity to a future of unknown environmental horror.

    And again why do we care what Republicans think? They now have fallen to no more than 23% of the American electorate.

    • Of course, this really was never about Mr. Obama per se.

      Which, of course, makes precisely the point that the Nobel Peace Prize, which used to mean something, has been sullied by silliness again this year.

      • Grow up madeyoulook.
        Obama deserves it just by winning his election and using the power of words . Whatever you say is always denigrating the person . Gro w up buddy !

  33. Obama deserves it just by winning his election

    I would love to hear how sane commentators on your rhetorical side will prop that one up.

  34. The "power of Obama's words"?

    I recall very, very powerful words spoken by a man who was heralded at the time as one of the greatest champions for peace, to a greatful populace fatigued from too much war.

    Those words were: "PEACE IN OUR TIME!"

    Spoken by one Neville Chamberlain.

    Meanwhile, Hitler went about assembling his Panzer divisions, to counter those very nice sounding words.

    Several decades later we have the eloquent Obama with his "outstretched hand" at the Iranians, who in turn graciously accept these kind words, while they work to fit their Shahab-3 missles with nuclear warheads.

  35. Parisella reminds me of the Bush adminstration's neocon cheerleaders on Fox News. He seems to suggest that all opposition to the president is anti-American. Opponents of the president's views are an extremist fringe. No facts are necessary and evidence is an unnecessary luxury in article-writing. The sole difference between the Parisella's of the world and the Bush cheerleaders, is that the former adopt a sort of snobby tone in lieu of a chest-thumping one. Auditioning for the Huffington post, John?

  36. My belief is that Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize because he successfully defeated the Bush/Cheney Republicans. Given what they did over the last few years – starting a war in Iraq, supporting "extraordinary rendition", Gitmo – it could be argued that removing them from office did more to advance the cause of world peace in 2009 than any other event.

    Of course, Obama didn't do this by himself, but it's hard to give an award to the 52.9% of American voters who voted for him. Flying 69,456,897 people to Sweden would be something of a logistical nightmare.

  37. If hope wins the Nobel prize then we would have to give it to every Beauty pageant contestant.

  38. What a farce! Let me state what we all know. Obama was given the prize for being a black left-leaning president – in other words, for what he is and not what he has done. His main qualification is that he is not Bush.

    Physicists have to wait many decades before their contributions are recognized. Obama is nominated for what he might or could or should do a few weeks after taking office. If the Nobel committee does not maintain standards then it's prizes will lapse into irrelevance.

    • No he's only half-black and he is demonstrably center-right. Based on his actions and not your opinion, he is In fact more to the right of Sarkozy, Merkel, and Cameron (UK); all of which belong to conservative parties.

      His main qualification is that he's the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, elected (fairly) by both a majority and plurality of voters, and can string together a entire sentence without botching either his grammar or pronunciation of common word.

      Second, he wasn't in the running for Physics. Them are apple and oranges.

      You are correct this was a vote against the American Taliban, the crypto-fascists, mad-militarists, and bogus conservative dogmatists who never saw a nation they shouldn't invade or a people they couldn't pilfer from.

  39. What's next for these lefty tools?

    Oh, I know…how about you play the race card John? Clearly, anyone that opposes Brock's nomination is a racist, dontchya know…as is anyone that opposes his health care plan, or any of his other policies…

  40. What HAS President Obama done? (Part one)

    Well, for one thing, he's changed the tenor of political discourse, both in the US, and internationally.

    Perhaps some portion of "the right "doesn't accept it, but he has opened the door to bi-partisan policy development, although it looks like it may be closed again, because some partisans (on "both" sides) are incapable of seeing politics as anything but a "zero-sum" game.

    He has publically acknowledged mistakes that he has made, something that few sitting Presidents have been willing to do, especially the previous one. The expectation that political leaders be infallible is unrealistic, and he has thus humanized the position which, somewhat counter-intuitively, actually makes more people relate positively to him. Everyone makes mistakes, right? So he's more like one of "them".

    He actually makes the time and effort to carefully explain his reasoning for decisions. One may not agree with the decisions, but at least one can understand where he's coming from. Again, quite distinct from his predecessor.

  41. What HAS President Obama done? (Part two)

    Domestically, he has restored faith in "process" in accordance with the principles and values of the US Constitution and its Amendments. It is NOT insignificant that he is the first "non-white" President; that reaffirms the notion that ANYBODY can, through dint of hard work and diligence…and a bit of good fortune and luck…can acheive "success", and even aspire to be President. No, that doesn't "solve" the racial divide in the US, that's far too entrenched to be repudiated on the basis of one election of one man, but it IS a positive value-affirming step.

  42. What HAS President Obama done? (Part three)

    One should not dismiss the power of his (or anyone else's, for that matter) words. Words HAVE power. They express and form ideas. The right choice of words can resonate within people's minds and consciousness…and subconscious. They can create a mindset that is more positive and productive and goal-oriented, and ultimately more beneficial to both the individual and society. Why would one think otherwise, with the proven success of things like Carnegie"s "power of positive thinking", or more recently, in a "popular" sense anyway, "The Secret"?

    Words and ideas that resonate with peoples' existing values and self-conceptions are more likely to be acted upon than those that create "cognitive dissonance", aren't they?

  43. What HAS President Obama done? (Part four)

    So "HOPE", as an idea and/or value, should not be discounted, either. It's not enough on its own, of course, but the fact is that the "American Dream" (another, long-standing idea) has fallen on hard times. Too many people are working too hard and NOT acheiving "success" (however that's defined) for people to believe in it very much any more. But if one doesn't have "HOPE" for a better future, why would one do what has to be done to acheive it?

  44. What HAS President Obama done? (Part five)

    Internationally, Obama has stepped back from unilateralism and brinkmanship and has acknowledged the legitimacy of other society's values and aspirations, WITHOUT denying those of the American people. The US still has "interests", but it's seemingly more prepared to work with others to further those interests, and those of other societies, than it has been in the recent past. The US still has a lot of power (both economically and militarily), but it appears to be willing to exercise those powers more responsibly, AND (importantly) more consistantly with its own expressed values. The US has very little credibility castigating other countries for, say, the use of torture and incarceration and abuse of human rights when "Gitmo" exists, or when "extraordinary rendition" is practiced, or torture is justified. The US's "moral authority" is being restored as these issues are being examined and resolved (although perhaps not as quickly as one would like).

  45. What HAS President Obama done? (Part six…sorry!)

    There's palpably LESS tension. LESS of the "Do as I say, not as I do" atmosphere. The US has become more predictable internationally (not "perfect" by a long shot), but at least foreign leaders and their socities again have reason to expect some serious consideration of their concerns. That's not an insignificant contribution to the maintenance of "peace".

  46. What HAS President Obama done? (Part seven)

    Has Obama done anything to "earn" the Nobel Peace Prize? Probably not…yet. He acknowledges that himself (again, a rather unusual statement from a sitting President). He must now face the additional burden of increased expectations.

    Both domestically and abroad, Obama has set forth a comprehensive, coherent, and consistant vision of the US. He has embarked on ambitious (probably TOO ambitious…could ANYONE acheive those lofty goals?) policy and programme development consistant with that vision. He has demonstrated a commitment to competance, reasoned discourse, and the appropriate amount of flexibility. He has extended the notion of "HOPE' beyond the US borders to the international community. THAT'S probably why he was awarded the prize.

  47. Wow John, do you read this stuff before you post it? First you say he deserved it, then you post a laundry ist of non-accomplishments, then you say they haven't borne fruit. First, how could he haver earned the award if the nominations clsoed so early after his inauguration, and second, even if you you could explain that, why do you list those non-accomplishments as support and then go on to say, in the same paragraph even, that they have yet to produce results? I think you got the talking points mixed up John.

  48. Just got back from vacation and can't stop laughing . get serious . he hasn't done anything . I agree not to rain on his parade but the Noble committee is dreaming in technicolor.

  49. You should all travel around the world and you would understand that Obama really deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.

Sign in to comment.