The Daily Capitalist: Nobel Peace Prize Goes to ... Obama?

» Beth Palmer wrote on 10.10.09 @ 04:31 AM

Oh, yee of little faith

» local wrote on 10.10.09 @ 06:25 AM

Well Jeff, you have now hit a new low. Obama openly stated that he was surprised at the award. In addition, he gave the money to charity. Why do I have the feeling that criticizing Obama is more important to you and others than a positive sign that the rest of the world likes the new direction America is heading under his leadership? Could he ever do anything that in your mind is positive? To me, America won this Nobel Peace Prize. After all, the last I checked we are all Americans. I was hoping that our Olympic bid and this Nobel Peace Prize would be a couple of places where you and others might call of the dogs. Unfortunately, it is more important to you and others that Obama fail than America does well and recovers.

» john q wrote on 10.10.09 @ 08:54 AM

The prize is cheapened. He has done nothing.

» Jeff Harding wrote on 10.10.09 @ 01:15 PM

It was Obama who said he didn’t deserve it. And you know well that the award was for not being “W” whom the Europeans hated after Iraq.

But tell, why do those who criticize me, and whom I believe would be some shade of liberal, always accuse me, with whom they disagree, as being a lover of G. Bush? Is it just possible, that they are never seeing the whole picture? I recently wrote an article on my blog suggesting that “W” may be the worst president in recent memory.

But, maybe I am a right wing wacko. I just don’t like the “change” he’s headed for. And, when he does something good, like make up his mind that he is getting out of Afghanistan, or rescinding tire tariffs, or stopping his Keynesian madness of bailing out big banks and big corporations, I’ll let you know.

Geez, all the name calling!

» Art wrote on 10.10.09 @ 08:24 PM

“Geez, all the name calling!”

When people can’t express a logical position on an issue they frequently resort to attacking the other person. We are seeing a LOT of that in many recent posts.

Sad….

» John Locke wrote on 10.11.09 @ 12:15 PM

I think the entire Nobel Prize process became seriously tarnished when Al Gore, self-described “inventor of the Internet”, got an award for a still-debated theory about climate change.

» Long Time Resident wrote on 10.11.09 @ 02:45 PM

Everyone agrees with Harding.

But isn’t it instructive how badly bent out of shape our closest (European) trading and military partners were after eight years of Rove-Cheney-Bush economic, foreign and military policy?

Harding is right. Looks like they gave Obama the big prize just for showing up, and
saying something politely that was non-Rove-Cheney-Bush to America’s foreign pals.

But as Harding knows, many international business and finance people directly blame Bush’s inept tax, budgetary, and (non) regulatory, (non) oversight processes for this current, worldwide economic meltdown. And not without good reason.

Were there more deserving Nobel candidates this year? Of course. David Brooks and
George Will (on the right) have been very sagacious listing them, to contrast with the
Nobel choice of Obama.

But you can also consider the Nobel’s strategic timing. Obama is early on trying to
re-evaluate Afghanistan policy, Iran policy, North Korea policy, our relations with
Russia, the Middle East, and our NATO allies. Isn’t it possible that the folks in Oslo
were trying to signal that having clear thinking, tangible goals, Exit policies, and a
multi-lateral toolbag for future foreign and international economic policy, are good
things, to be highly valued by America’s allies?

Perhaps they are trying to nudge a new administration, which has already gone to
Cairo to dialogue with the Muslim world, gone to Ghana to challenge the 3rd World,
gone to Asia to discuss future trade and security relations with India, China, Japan,
et al., to keep going.

Perhaps they recognize what Harding conveniently chose to forget the prior eight
years. That America’s two costly foreign wars were being flogged ahead by a team
that (exception Colin Powell in the 1st term) had ZERO personal military experience.

Not John Bolton, not Rumsfeld, not Cheney, not Rice, not Bush. Nor (unlike McCain)
did they allow or encourage any of their own kids to join and serve after 9/11, as
they left the “sacrifice” again to families of the working poor, stirred up by Rove’s
drumbeat of (mostly false) war-hawking rhetoric.

To see America begin to consciously back away from the Bush disaster might have
seemed so momentous that it stirred the Nobel committee to action. Will it work?
At the least, Obama is reminded that “the whole world is watching”.

» Tomahawkdeb wrote on 10.12.09 @ 10:21 AM

Well, gee, I’ve stood in a circle of friends, held hands and sung Koombayah.  I’ve flashed the peace sign at others and suggested that my children play nicely with others. By this Nobel Prize Committee’s standards, I should have been nominated for the prize, too!  The prize was not considered by the esteemed Mr. Nobel to be a call to action.  The prize was intended for someone who had actually accomplished something, not just suggested good stuff.  IF anything President Obama has suggested should come to fruition, THEN would be the time to give him the award, not BEFORE.  Of course, giving it to Al Gore was their first step in the wrong direction.  The prize is nothing but a joke now.