Skip to main content

View Diary: President Obama Shows Why He Won The Nobel Peace Prize. (272 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You confuse (0+ / 0-)

    working towards peace with actually achieving it.  The former is a rationale for awarding the prize.  Projecting some future efforts to work towards peace is not the same thing.  I think to try to put Obama in the same category of the people you mention demeans the hard work they undertook.

    •  Please tell me what Mairead Corrigan achieved. (8+ / 0-)

      You are wrong on the facts here. The Nobel Peace Prize is frequently awarded to people whose work has not yet accomplished anything, in an effort to give their work a boost.

      See here: Oftentimes, the winners are people who have not completed their work toward peace, but who are at a critical juncture in their work and who need the support that winning the Nobel Peace Prize brings.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Sat Sep 28, 2013 at 09:47:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Read more closely (0+ / 0-)

        I said:  projecting some future efforts to work towards peace.

        Nobel says:  winners...are at a critical juncture in their "work."  

        Please explain what work of Obama's was at a critical juncture when the award was granted.  

        •  He was negotiating nuclear arms reduction w Russia (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Wordsinthewind, FiredUpInCA

          From the Nobel Committee's announcement:

          The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded 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.

          Art is the handmaid of human good.

          by joe from Lowell on Sat Sep 28, 2013 at 02:34:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Obama deserved his Nobel Peace Prize on day one (6+ / 0-)

      Maybe I didn't make myself clear because I was supporting a point made by the diarist.

      I believe Obama deserved his prize when it was awarded for what he had achieved at that point.

      In 2008, there were virtually no politicians who were seriously contending for the presidency who were willing to articulate a platform to end the Iraq war. Hillary Clinton, despite her many good attributes, was waffling.

      After Obama won the primaries, John McCain was Obama's opponent. When asked how long the occupation should last, McCain mentioned the continuing occupation of Germany and Japan after WW II and said he could imagine the US occupying Iraq for 100 years.

      Obama offered the country a stark choice and a mass movement in the form of an election campaign: the US would end its war in and occupation of Iraq; or the US would continue its war in and occupation of Iraq for a century.

      That was the issue in 2008: the war ends or it continues for one hundred years.

      By brilliantly running an under dog campaign based on ending the war and occupation of Iraq, by convincing the American people that this policy was better than 100 years of war and occupation, by presenting this stark choice and winning, by turning a campaign into a mass movement, yes, indeed, Obama deserved his Nobel Prize when he won it.

      I'm just saying now for skeptics, he was won it over and over and over again since then.

      •  We'll have to agree to disagree (0+ / 0-)

        The plans for Iraq were already set and we are still at war, including in countries against which we have not declared war.  

        Also, if all one has to do to earn a Nobel Peace Prize is to deliver campaign speeches, the award has lost all lustre and value.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site