Around the Horn: Reactions from the Blogosphere on Obama's Nobel Peace Prize

My reaction is here. Here are some reactions from the blogosphere:

The TOXIC Mud Pit:

What a joke. Such a huge slap in the face to those who have actually accomplished something for peace. As WaPo notes, two other US presidents have won…but in their second terms and after, ahem, actually achieving something. I thought giving it to Gore amounted to making it worthless, but this takes the cake.

Bungalow Bill:

Let's face it. The Nobel Prize means nothing. It's a silly peace of metal. Obama has done more to hurt peace by giving credibility to some of the most evil dictators in the world while lowering the security of peaceful nations everywhere. This isn't worthy of a metal. It's worthy of the western world laughing you out of office.

Cosmic X at Cosmic X in Jerusalem:

The Nobel Peace Prize became a joke ever since it was awarded to Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzchak Rabin in 1994 for the ill fated "Oslo Agreements". The Norwegians continue to prove that they have a poor sense of humor by awarding the prize to Mr. B.O. I am not laughing.

Mr. Trend at AlterDestiny:

In that regard, I think he's more deserving of the award than many. Is it too soon? I think that's a fair argument. Is it confusing? A bit (even after having awakened after a cup of coffee). Is there room for improvement? Of course - show me one person who's already perfect. That said, I think this is in part about Obama, and the (what I think is very real) change he brings to American foreign policy. But to focus on it just being about him is to miss the larger point, I think; it's also about embracing a major change in diplomatic relations between the U.S. and the world at large, a change that the U.S. initiated under the leadership of a particular man. And I'm fine with that.

Adam T. Rossi at Political Junkie:

But thank god the Nobel Prize committee does not except money from lobbyists, which allows them, if nothing else, to preserve the idea of peace on earth. Which would probably explain why the war mongering, in it for themselves, swine's of the Republican party are usually being lectured by the Nobel Peace Prize committee and not praised. I can just imagine what Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck will have to say about this. We'll probably be talking about a Tea Party rally in front of Noble Prize committee's Norwegian head quarters next week (Rabble Rabble Rabble), maybe even the total annihilation of Norway all together.

But enough about those sick bastards, because while they sulk over our president's monumental win (like they would if he reached world peace, stopped global warming and cured cancer), the rest of us should be proud that we now have a president, who is praised by the Nobel committee, instead of being chastised for unilateralism like his predecessor George W. Bush had been.

Taylor Marsh:

For Pres. Obama’s outreach to the Muslim community, which is nothing less than historic, especially looking through the prism of Bush-Cheney; when you look at his preliminary preparations for Middle East dialogue; when he took the bold step to demand a freeze in Israeli settlements. Barack Obama foreshadows what could be if partners come forth, even if nothing concrete has manifested. In Afghanistan, his determination to help the Afghans help themselves, but particularly the women of that country rise up.

Coralville Courier:

Never mind that the deadline for submitting a nobel nominee ended two weeks after Obama took office. So what's the deal, are we to believe that Obama won based on campaign trail talk?

Gee, what an accomplishment!

The award has truly lost its prestige, as Obama really hasn't contributed anything to global peace yet. Can you say, "Rigged?" I think you can.

And peace? Obama said he would end the Iraq war but he hasn't delivered as he promised on the campaign trail. In Afghanistan, the president is seriously considering ramping up the U.S. troop presence there - a surge. He's authorized predator drone strikes in Pakistan and helicopter attacks in Somalia.

President Obama Wins the Nobel Peace Prize

Like many of you did this morning, I received the news that President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize, making him the third sitting U.S. President in history to receive this honor. I must admit that when I was initially told of this, I didn't think that I had heard the news correctly. Predictably there has been intense backlash on the right in reaction to this news and there has been reaction from some on the left praising the decision and deriding the detractors on the right. In reality, we should call this decision for what it is, incongruous.

From the AP:

For one of America's youngest presidents, in office less than nine months — and only for 12 days before the Nobel nomination deadline last February — it was an enormous honor.

The prize seems to be more for Obama's promise than for his performance. The Nobel committee cited as his key accomplishment "a new climate in international politics." The president has become "the world's leading spokesman" for its agenda, the committee said.

He has no standout moment of victory. Not surprising. Like most presidents in their first year, Obama's scorecard so far is largely an "incomplete," if he's being graded.

With Obama only being in office for nine months, it is natural that much of his work is still incomplete. The Nobel committee stated that they were honoring his creation of a new climate in international politics and his efforts to strengthen international diplomacy. I think it is notable to mention that this statement has some truth to it. Obama has made quite an effort to change the international climate, he did an interview with al-Arabiya, has reached out to the Muslim world through speeches, and he has made promises to close Guantanamo, end torture, and sit down with foreign leaders with whom he may not always agree. These are positive steps and a notable change in tone from the strategy that was engaged in over the last eight years.

In looking at the actions that have been undertaken by Obama, one needs to look no further than the fact that he is presiding over two wars, one of which he has escalated and one in which we have seen no considerable effort to end. Obama has adopted the war in Afghanistan by ordering air raids and drone attacks that have had large numbers of civilian casualties, including numerous children. Couple this with the protection of the previous Administration despite serious accusations of lawbreaking and his continued policies of extraordinary rendition and can one seriously make the argument that these actions are worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize?

Former peace-prize winner Mairead Corrigan Maguire has expressed her disappointment with this decision for this reason:

Mrs Maguire won the 1976 Nobel award along with fellow Belfast peace campaigner Betty Williams.

"President Obama has yet to prove that he will move seriously on the Middle East, that he will end the war in Afghanistan and many other issues," Mrs Maguire said.

"The Nobel committee is not meeting the conditions of Alfred Nobel's will, because he stipulated that the award is to be given to people who end militarism and war and are for disarmament."

and Glenn Greenwald asks the very stark question:

How can someone responsible for that, and who has only escalated that war, possibly be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in the very same year that he did that? Does that picture above look like the work of a Nobel Peace laureate?

It is ludicrous to think that one who works to escalate war and militarism can win one of the highest honors for promoting peace.


This piece is cross posted here.