Hate Talk Radio Will Be Fascinating Today

9 Oct

After all, Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize.

for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

“He has created a new international climate,” the committee said in its announcement. President Obama’s name had not figured in speculation about the likely winner until minutes before the prize was announced here.

Likely candidates had been seen here as including human rights activists in China and Afghanistan and political figures in Africa.

The committee said it wanted to enhance Mr. Obama’s diplomatic efforts. “We are awarding Obama for what he has done,” the committee said. “Many other people and leaders and nations have to respond in a positive way” to President Obama’s diplomacy.

That ought to shut up all the glib assholes who went on a “Ha ha I thought the world was supposed to love us now, and look Obama can’t even get them to award us the Olympics” tirade last week.

64 Responses to “Hate Talk Radio Will Be Fascinating Today”

  1. Ward October 9, 2009 at 7:27 am #

    Enjoy the moment.
    However, being criticized by the French (!) for appeasement and capitulation, while it may immediately qualify one for the Nobel in the Age of Gore, may amount to a most telling moment in the long run. At least when they gave it to Carter they could point to a specific result. This one got it explicitly for squishy speeches and breast-beating–what he does best.

    • Alan Bedenko October 9, 2009 at 7:50 am #

      Diplomacy = negotiation. Not capitulation.

  2. The Humanist October 9, 2009 at 8:12 am #

    @ Ward – no, this was the World Prize for “Thank heavens you didn’t elect McCain and that insane ex-beauty queen”

  3. Terry October 9, 2009 at 8:53 am #

    Is the London Times cosnidered Hate talk? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6867664.ece

    • Alan Bedenko October 9, 2009 at 8:56 am #

      The London Times is run by conservative Rupert Murdoch (owner of the NY Post, Fox News Channel, Wall Street Journal).

      The decision was welcomed by other Nobel peace laureates, including Mikhail Gorbachev, Muhammad Yunnus and Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa. Mohamed ElBaradei, who heads the UN’s nuclear watchdog and won the prize in 2005, said: “I cannot think of anyone today more deserving of this honour. In less than a year in office, he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we live in and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself.”

      Lech Walesa, who won the prize in 1983, spoke for many with his reaction. “Obama? So fast? Too fast – he hasn’t had the time to do anything yet,” the former Polish president told reporters in Warsaw.

      The decision was also criticised by America’s international foes – the Taleban said that Mr Obama had “not taken a single step towards peace in Afghanistan” – and is unlikely to go down well with the President’s critics on the American Right.

      Also, it’s not a radio show. hth.

  4. Bruce Beyer October 9, 2009 at 8:58 am #

    I wonder which piece he won this for? Iraq or Afghanistan? Perhaps it was pre-emptive for Iran? This was the same crew which granted Henry Kissinger the prize for his work in Vietnam. (Forget the secret bombing
    of Laos and Cambodia) As Barry Crimmins says in his book by the same title “Never Shake Hands With a War Criminal”.

  5. Jackstraw October 9, 2009 at 8:59 am #

    “We are awarding Obama for what he has done,”–bomb brown people, saddle the American people with trillions in bad debt instruments, make a desperate attempt to permanently tie tax dollars to the medical industrial complex through forced participation in government run “health care”. I wonder what the war prize would look like.

    • Alan Bedenko October 9, 2009 at 9:04 am #

      –bomb brown people, saddle the American people with trillions in bad debt instruments, make a desperate attempt to permanently tie tax dollars to the medical industrial complex through forced participation in government run “health care”. I wonder what the war prize would look like.

      I wasn’t aware that the Nobel Peace Prize had anything to do with internal domestic fiscal policy. Also, essentially every single country in Europe promises its citizens universal health coverage to some degree. The United States doesn’t. Thanks for trying though.

  6. Howard Goldman October 9, 2009 at 9:26 am #

    I think it’s great but I was really rooting for the Teleprompter to win the award.

  7. Ethan October 9, 2009 at 10:11 am #

    From the left, I find this pretty shocking, too. Obama’s record on restoring our civil rights is pretty thin so far, as is his record of stopping the US military-industrial complex from continuing to reap insane profits on the backs of dead Afghanis and imprisoned Iraqis. We still spend nearly as much on our military than the rest of the world combined, so I have to ask: what peace has Obama ushered in? Yes, I recognize that he’s been consideribly less unilateral than the prior administration, but with the bar set that low, how anyone could fail to vault it is beyond me. Comparing him to the worst we can be makes no sense at all; the standard we need to hold him to is the best we could be. By that measure, he’s done precious little.

    Then again, among the Nobels, the Peace prize has always been pretty fluffy compared to the others, so maybe I don’t really care all that much anyway.

  8. jesse (from ea) October 9, 2009 at 10:13 am #

    Obama won because he’s just so awesome! Just for being him!

    To me, it just shows how much the world really really really (deservedly) hated GWB.

  9. STEEL October 9, 2009 at 10:15 am #

    This just proves that he is Hitler because we all know that Hitler was for peace. Didn’t someone make the case for that on here?

  10. Jackstraw October 9, 2009 at 10:16 am #

    “I wasn’t aware that the Nobel Peace Prize had anything to do with internal domestic fiscal policy. ” — I guess your right ..but I can’t figure how someone who perpatrates such a massive violent action (stealing money) against his own citizens get’s a peace prize. So I guess that opens the door for Mugabe. I mean it’s just a domestic fiscal issue.

  11. Ward October 9, 2009 at 10:18 am #

    If, as BP says, Diplomacy = Negotiation, can anyone point to any diplomatic negotiation initiated by or on behalf of The One–let alone brought to fruition–and productive of Peace? If not, is the prize bestowed solely on the basis of his various Apology Tours?

  12. Byron October 9, 2009 at 10:30 am #

    You gotta love teleprompter jokes from Bush dead-enders. Seriously, these people are beyond parody.

  13. Colin Eager October 9, 2009 at 10:31 am #

    Bruce is right that the committee has a history of giving the award to some very violent people. Still, this sucks.

  14. Byron October 9, 2009 at 10:38 am #

    “Iran agreed in principle Thursday [October 1, 2009] to ship most of its current stockpile of enriched uranium to Russia, where it would be refined for exclusively peaceful uses, in what Western diplomats called a significant, but interim, measure to ease concerns over its nuclear program.

    The agreement was announced after seven and a half hours of talks in Geneva that included the highest-level official U.S.-Iranian encounter in three decades.

    Iran also pledged that within weeks it would allow the inspection of a previously covert uranium enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom . . .”

    Here.

  15. Brian Castner October 9, 2009 at 10:45 am #

    @ Alan: You predicted right-wing opposition to this prize, while is easy and predictable. But the real question is, this is your blog, do you think Obama is deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize? I’d like to see if that position is defensible. I bet not.

    • Alan Bedenko October 9, 2009 at 11:08 am #

      do you think Obama is deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize? I’d like to see if that position is defensible. I bet not.

      I think restoration of the idea that diplomacy and engagement is a process of negotiation rather than a system of appeasement and capitulation is, itself, enough of a justification.

      Also, acknowledging that Obama’s win is more aspirational than for achievement, that fact is not unprecedented. From this article:

      “Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future,” Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Nobel Committee said. “In the past year Obama has been a key person for important initiatives in the U.N. for nuclear disarmament and to set a completely new agenda for the Muslim world and East-West relations.”

      He added that the committee endorsed “Obama’s appeal that ‘Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”‘

      President Theodore Roosevelt won the award in 1906 and President Woodrow Wilson won in 1919.

      The committee chairman said after awarding the 2002 prize to former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, for his mediation in international conflicts, that it should be seen as a “kick in the leg” to the Bush administration’s hard line in the buildup to the Iraq war.

      Five years later, the committee honored Bush’s adversary in the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore, for his campaign to raise awareness about global warming.

      The Nobel committee received a record 205 nominations for this year’s prize though it was not immediately apparent who nominated Obama.

      “The exciting and important thing about this prize is that it’s given too someone … who has the power to contribute to peace,” Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg said.

      Also, it’s the Nobel Committee’s way of extending a one-finger salute to George W. Bush, a man whose administration did more often than not consider diplomacy to be the equivalent of capitulation and appeasement.

  16. lulu October 9, 2009 at 11:06 am #

    I applaud our president for being recognized for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. This is good for America.

  17. mike hudson October 9, 2009 at 11:07 am #

    i’m with lech walensa on this. obama’s been president for 10 months and has yet to make any significant strides toward any of the major goals he outlined during the campaign. he’s pissed israel off, and i guess that’s something but, man, it must have been a pretty thin field this year.

    his prize is a lot more in the kissinger-gore mold than the tutu/walensa actually did something notable tradition.

  18. mike October 9, 2009 at 11:19 am #

    Leave it to hudson to jump on the rats band wagon, lech walensa a secret informer of the Polish communist secret police.

    • Alan Bedenko October 9, 2009 at 11:25 am #

      I’m with Shimon Peres:

      “Very few leaders if at all were able to change the mood of the entire world in such a short while with such a profound impact. You provided the entire humanity with fresh hope, with intellectual determination, and a feeling that there is a lord in heaven and believers on earth.” Mr. Peres, who won the peace prize with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat in 1994 following the Oslo Accords, added: “Under your leadership, peace became a real and original agenda. And from Jerusalem, I am sure all the bells of engagement and understanding will ring again. You gave us a license to dream and act in a noble direction.”

  19. Brian Castner October 9, 2009 at 11:23 am #

    So his main qualifiers were 1) a belief in diplomacy, 2) not GWB, and 3) the world likes him? The Peace Prize Committees’ fasination with inserting itself in American politics is well established. But if you really only want those three things in a winner, they couldn’t come up with anyone else? Hell, Angelina Jolie fits those qualifiers, and has arguably done far more for world peace.

    • Alan Bedenko October 9, 2009 at 11:26 am #

      I think having a President who believes in diplomacy, as compared with the previous Cheney administration, which palpably did not, is a big deal indeed. The Nobel Committee thinks so, too.

      The RNC, incidentally, released this:

      The real question Americans are asking is, ‘What has President Obama actually accomplished?’ It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights. One thing is certain – President Obama won’t be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action.

      Translation: Obama sucks, therefore fuck America!

      The DNC responds thusly:

      The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists — the Taliban and Hamas this morning — in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize. Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize — an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride — unless of course you are the Republican Party. The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It’s no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore – it’s an embarrassing label to claim.

      Barack Obama is such a monster that the Republicans have found common ground with Hamas and the Taliban. For real. Remember how the Republicans told us in 2004 and 2008 that al Qaeda really wanted the Democrat to win? Yeah, that turned out to be bullshit.

      • Alan Bedenko October 9, 2009 at 12:10 pm #

        Obama’s statement:

        Well, this is not how I expected to wake up this morning.

        After I received the news, Malia walked in and said, “Daddy, you won the Nobel Peace Prize, and it is Bo’s birthday.”

        And then Sasha added, “Plus, we have a three-day weekend coming up.”

        So it’s — it’s good to have kids to keep things in perspective.

        I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee.

        Let me be clear, I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.

        OBAMA: 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 this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women and all Americans want to build, a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents.

        And I 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.

        OBAMA: And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.

        Now, these challenges can’t be met by any one leader or any one nation. And that’s why my administration’s worked to establish a new era of engagement in which all nations must take responsibility for the world we seek.

        We cannot tolerate a world in which nuclear weapons spread to more nations and in which the terror of a nuclear holocaust endangers more people.

        And that’s why we’ve begun to take concrete steps to pursue a world without nuclear weapons: because all nations have the right to pursue peaceful nuclear power, but all nations have the responsibility to demonstrate their peaceful intentions.

        We cannot accept the growing threat posed by climate change, which could forever damage the world that we pass on to our children, sowing conflict and famine, destroying coastlines and emptying cities.

        OBAMA: And that’s why all nations must now accept their share of responsibility for transforming the way that we use energy.

        We can’t allow the differences between peoples to define the way that we see one another. And that’s why we must pursue a new beginning among people of different faiths and races and religions, one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.

        And we must all do our part to resolve those conflicts that have caused so much pain and hardship over so many years. And that effort must include an unwavering commitment to finally realize that — the rights of all Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security in nations of their own.

        We can’t accept a world in which more people are denied opportunity and dignity that all people yearn for: the ability to get an education and make a decent living, the security that you won’t have to live in fear of disease or violence without hope for the future.

        OBAMA: And even as we strive to seek a world in which conflicts are resolved peacefully and prosperity is widely shared, we have to confront the world as we know it today.

        I am the commander in chief of a country that’s responsible for ending a war and working in another theater to confront a ruthless adversary that directly threatens the American people and our allies. I’m also aware that we are dealing with the impact of a global economic crisis that has left millions of Americans looking for work.

        These are concerns that I confront every day on behalf of the American people.

        Some of the work confronting us will not be completed during my presidency. Some, like the elimination of nuclear weapons, may not be completed in 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 is not simply about the efforts of my administration; it’s about the courageous efforts of people around the world.

        OBAMA: And that’s why this award must be shared with everyone who strives for justice and dignity; for the young woman who marches silently in the streets on behalf of her right to be heard, even in the face of beatings and bullets; for the leader imprisoned in her own home because she refuses to abandon her commitment to democracy; for the soldier who sacrificed through tour after tour of duty on behalf of someone half a world away; and for all those men and women across the world who sacrifice their safety and their freedom and sometime their lives for the cause of peace.

        That has always been the cause of America. That’s why the world has always looked to America. And that’s why I believe America will continue to lead.

        Thank you very much.

  20. Trader October 9, 2009 at 11:50 am #

    Five bucks says Kanye interrupts the award ceremony. After all, they both have the exact same number of tangilble diplomatic results to their credit. Oh, and while on the subject, if diplomacy equals negotiation, for what exactly are we negotiating with the Taliban? with Al-Queada? with North Korea? Fewer stonings of women? Fewer hijackings? Fewer broken promises regarding nuclear weapons? How about Iran? Shall we negotiate exactly how many Jews should be killed? What is the acceptable number? Let’s negotiate. I am sure we can reach some middle ground. True peace comes only when an adversary is convinced that further agression is existentially terminal. See Gemany and Japan for examples…

  21. Brian Castner October 9, 2009 at 12:05 pm #

    First, I’d like some proof that the world mood has changed: please ask Iran, Russia, China, Pakistan and Afghanistan if they feel differently. Their actions say no. Second, I think the only ones bringing up the Taliban today are the DNC, and you reading their talking points. That would put many on the left in with the Taliban too (http://www.slate.com/id/2231909 http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-09/obamas-nobel-farce) as they complain Obama hasn’t done enough to stop the war, or really do anything deserving of the win. Stop the Hitleresque/Talibanesque baiting – Obama doesn’t deserve the prize. Have the intellectual honesty to say so. He was Pres for two weeks during the award period. Srsly.

    And this isn’t about fucking America, its about diminishing the already tarnished Peace Prize. Obama’s win is good for America. That’s more important in the long run. But this is an personality cult prize, and nothing else.

  22. Ward October 9, 2009 at 12:12 pm #

    “Barack Obama is such a monster that the Republicans have found common ground with Hamas and the Taliban.”

    If sharing a belief equates one with a hated person, then: Leon Trostky was not a practicing religious; BP is not a practicing re;igious; therefore, BP = Leon Trotsky.
    Yuh.

  23. Mike Walsh October 9, 2009 at 12:14 pm #

    It’s clear from the statements from the Nobel committee and Obama himself that this was a message and a prodding, not awarded for achievement. I’d say that this backs the president into a corner and will make it tricky to extract political capital from.

    I think both the Obama haters who consider him the antichrist and the worshippers who crowned him the messiah should come down to earth.

    • Alan Bedenko October 9, 2009 at 12:24 pm #

      I agree with that, Mike (Walsh). The expectations on Obama have always been high. Sometimes irrationally so. This will make his job harder. But I still applaud the granting of this award for the reintroduction of diplomacy and multilateralism into American foreign policy.

      It’s not negotiating with despots that = appeasement. It’s appeasing them that = appeasement. That nuance was abolished during 2001 – 2008.

  24. Ethan October 9, 2009 at 12:25 pm #

    Is this “peace?” I’d like to see this sort of award go to the guy who stops bombing children, not the guy who continues to do so. Guess that’s just me, though.

    • Alan Bedenko October 9, 2009 at 12:51 pm #

      Well, when you can show me that he’s deliberately bombing children, rather than bombing Taliban who are happy to use children and villages as human shields from which to mount attacks on US troops, then I’ll accept your premise.

  25. Ethan October 9, 2009 at 12:34 pm #

    On your specious claim that “Republicans side with The Terrorists,” parry this thrust from Glenn Greenwald, s.v.p.:

    Remember how, during the Bush years, the GOP would disgustingly try to equate liberals with Terrorists by pointing out that they happened to have the same view on a particular matter (The Left opposes the war in Iraq, just like Al Qaeda and Hezbollah do! or bin Laden’s criticisms of Bush sound just like Michael Moore’s! ). It looks like the Democratic Party has learned and adopted that tactic perfectly (“‘The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists – the Taliban and Hamas this morning – in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize,’ DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO”; Republicans are “put[ting] politics above patriotism,” he added).

    Apparently, according to the DNC, if you criticize this Prize, then you’re an unpatriotic America-hater — just like the Terrorists, because they’re also criticizing the award. Karl Rove should be proud. Maybe the DNC should also send out Joe Lieberman’s 2005 warning that “in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.” Hamas also thinks that Israeli settlements should be frozen — a position Obama shares. So, by the DNC’s Rovian reasoning, doesn’t this mean that Obama “has thrown in his lot with the terrorists”?

    I do not “side with the Libertarians” just because I advocate marijuana policy reform, not even close.

    • Alan Bedenko October 9, 2009 at 12:54 pm #

      As for Glenn Greenwald, after 8 years of being called unpatriotic by the Republicans, I am not particularly troubled by the shoe being on the other foot.

  26. Jackstraw October 9, 2009 at 12:37 pm #

    The committee said it wanted to enhance Mr. Obama’s diplomatic efforts. “We are awarding Obama for what he has done,” the committee said. “Many other people and leaders and nations have to respond in a positive way” Someone on another blog pointed out that the offical closing dates for nominees is Febuary 1st. Obama took office on the 20th of January. So…what was it that he did in that short span that deserves the Nobel Peace Prize? “He has created a new international climate,” All in the matter of roughly two weeks? Mokay!

  27. Ethan October 9, 2009 at 12:38 pm #

    Love this: Barack Obama wins Lady Byng Trophy.

  28. Ethan October 9, 2009 at 1:19 pm #

    “I am not particularly troubled by the shoe being on the other foot.” = “I am not particularly troubled by (my) hypocrisy” Well, good for you!

    As to the other, it’s unimportant whether or not Obama intends to kill and maim children; he continues policies that are widely known to have that effect, and he is ergo complicit. What’s a manslaughter charge all about, anyway? If you unintentionally kill someone, you’re still culpable. You’re a lawyer, so really, you ought to know that. Accept this premise: there are better ways to keep America safe than to bomb “the Taliban.” (Who, by way of mentioning, are not Al Quaida, and who pose little or no threat to the US in the US, but rather, in their own country which we are currently occupying.

    • Alan Bedenko October 9, 2009 at 1:32 pm #

      Well, thanks Ethan. But IIRC the Taliban had given safe haven to al Qaeda from which the latter were able to launch some pretty nasty terrorist actions against the US. If the Taliban return to power in Afghanistan, then that will undoubtedly re-occur. Al Qaeda did (and continues to want to) attack the US in the US.

      As for children being unintentionally slaughtered in a war, this is a horror. If you unintentionally kill someone, it is always a homicide. It is not always manslaughter.

  29. Bruce Beyer October 9, 2009 at 1:19 pm #

    Really Alan!?!! The Children being bombed in Afghanistan and Iraq are simply (as Tim McVeigh so politely put it) collateral damage. Your premise is that the war against the people of Afghanistan is a just war. I thought we went there to get Osama? I believe that “just war theory” is taught at our esteemed military academies to justify just about any war the US decides to involve itself in. Hardly a position I would expect from a person whom I hold in such high regard.

    I truly understand what you are saying, we would all like to believe in some shred of decency left in this world. For example, I believe that given the choice, President Obama would rather not send an additional 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan. He does not have a choice and he will not be given one.
    That old bogey man from the fifties, THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, won’t allow choice.

  30. mike hudson October 9, 2009 at 2:03 pm #

    slate’s jack shafer also agrees with lech walensa and glenn greenwald’s piece is salon is “obama’s unearned nobel.” both shafer and greenwald are accredited members of the left, as is walensa.

    that’s opposed to the anonymous commentator known as mike, who is simply a retard.

    • Alan Bedenko October 9, 2009 at 2:16 pm #

      Walensa is a “member of the left?”

  31. Brian Castner October 9, 2009 at 2:20 pm #

    Its a topsy-turvy world when Ethan is defending R’s against the politics of guilt-by-association, and Alan is praising military action that happens to kill children! I guess we found an issue that cuts across ideological lines.

  32. Brian Castner October 9, 2009 at 2:22 pm #

    BTW, Ethan – Lady Byng FTW!

  33. mike October 9, 2009 at 2:52 pm #

    hudson sure has a thin skin for a reporter, i guess he can dish it out but can’t take it kind of like his cry baby hero Walesa, Infuriated by the resurgence of the accusations in March 2009, Wałęsa announced that he would not take part in ceremonies commemorating the 20th anniversary of the fall of Communism, and if accusations continue, he would first return all his decorations, then leave Poland altogether. yup he’s a rat

  34. STEEL October 9, 2009 at 3:32 pm #

    I bet if Obama found the cure for cancer the Right would find a problem with it.

  35. mike hudson October 9, 2009 at 3:39 pm #

    pundit…are you serious? he was a labor union leader who truly battled an oppressive government on behalf of the workers. he risked his own life fighting for workers’ rights. what’s not left about that?

    and what is left about a guy who is overseeing the daily bombing of civilian populations in afghanistan, refuses to go to the mat over universal health coverage and runs a concentration camp in guantanamo bay?

    walensa walked the walk whil, thus far, our prizewinner has only talked.

  36. Jon Splett October 9, 2009 at 5:14 pm #

    Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize is much like when a New York Yankee wins the MVP. There’s almost always a better choice but the media hype and overexposure makes him look like a better candidate than he is and people vote for him.

    Does he deserve the prize?
    Probably not.
    Did he ask to be considered for it and lobby to win it?
    Probably not so I don’t see how people can bury him for winning.

    The only good that comes out of this is that the Hitler comparisons should at least KIND OF die down now but the partisan dick sucking should reach orgy level which will be insufferable. Democrats are already smug and annoying. This just gives them enough ammo to reach that Republican level of smug and annoying.

    Oh, and everything Ethan said was pretty much on point.

  37. Ward October 9, 2009 at 5:35 pm #

    BP — might have been a wise move to wait and see if your fellow liberal pundits didn’t find this one a bit over the top.

    ● Mickey Kaus (calls on Obama to politely decline the honor).

    ● Peter Beinart, former editor of the New Republic (“this is a farce”).

    ● New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof (“very premature”).

    ● Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post (“ridiculous—embarrassing, even”).

    ● Columnist Richard Cohen (“the Pulitzer Prize for literature went to Sarah Palin for her stated intention ‘to read a book someday’”).

    ● Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein (“Obama also awarded Nobel Prize for Chemistry. ‘He’s just got great chemistry,’ Nobel committee says”) .

    ● Gabriel Rachman of the Financial Times (“slightly premature,” “very odd timing”).

    So, BP, it’s not just “Hate Talk Radio” that has a wee bit of an issue with this one.

  38. Pete at BuffaloStuff.net October 9, 2009 at 6:15 pm #

    Obama winning the Peace Prize wasn’t that good for America. It gave us the opportunity to look foolish again, and we, of course, siezed it. When a leader makes policy decisions and is criticized, that is part of the game. When a leader does things that are actually good for the country and people line up to ridicule and critisize, it makes us look silly. Truth is, the people who are critisizing today are the same crew that don’t give a rat’s ass how we look in the eyes of the world. There is an American arrogance that assumes we are the only remaining super power and that it will last forever. Truth is, we aren’t the only remaining suoer power. There are armies getting stronger everyday and there are economies that are in much better shape than ours. Add to the that the super arrogance and then we end up fighting trillion dollar wars without much help.

    I care what the rest of the world thinks of us. I see us getting more by being a respected member of the global community than assuming we can buy it or force I way into it. I believe in leadership by example, not by rank. When you lead by rank people want to knock you off the top of the hill. When you lead by example people have a vested interest in keeping you up there.

    Criticising the president for EVERYTHING he does or is involved in is petty and partisan. Obama didn’t solicit this award. And the Nobels have the right to award there stuff to anyone they want to, by any criterion they want….end…of….story. A few weeks ago, Kanye West proved what an ass he was. This morning a whole bunch of people lined up behind Kanye for the honor of Largest Jackass Award.

    When my conservative dad brought me up, he brought me up to believe that “congratulations” is what you say when someone wins an award, even if it was an award you felt YOU should have won.

  39. mike hudson October 9, 2009 at 7:16 pm #

    pete…you are of course correct and your father was a gentleman. had pundit merely announced the award and said congratulations, i think the comments here would have been different. but he didn’t. he turned it into a partisan issue by headlining the announcement “hate talk radio…” started calling people ‘glib assholes.” brought the entire event down to a cheap, partisan political level, which was unneccessary and uncalled for.

  40. mike October 9, 2009 at 7:47 pm #

    coming from the expert of cheap trash talk…

  41. shim October 9, 2009 at 11:19 pm #

    Once again BP you’ve managed to label anyone that dares to disagree with Obama or dares to differ with him or any of his positions as a person of hate. Silly me but I just thought to win something as prestigeous as the Nobel Peace Prize you actually had to ACCOMPLISH something and not just have a “vision”. However it shouldn’t really shock anyone. The man never really accomplished anything of note before he was elected President of the United States so why should this be any different. Quite frankly after seeing a few interview I think even the great “celebrity in chief” was a bit embarrassed by his selection.

  42. PJ October 10, 2009 at 12:07 am #

    It’s a trap!!!! A little known rule requires that the winner must to produce his birth certificate at the award ceremony.

  43. Pete at BuffaloStuff.net October 10, 2009 at 7:15 am #

    Alan’s job is to start a conversation. Like the Nobel Peace Prize is their’s to award to anyone they see fit, for any reason…this is Alan’s house. He can start his conversation any way he wants. I come here to read and comment because I like what I see. Many of you come here because you can’t stand what you see and feel compelled to rebutt. When that happens, Alan did his job. Those of you that disagree with Alan come here to disagree with Alan. If he was bland and noncomittal, it would be boring and you wouldn’t come, and Alan wouldn’t win awards every year.

  44. Byron October 10, 2009 at 8:08 am #

    And of course he never “label[ed] anyone that dares to disagree with Obama … or any of his positions as a person of hate.” Like most right-wingers here, shim just makes stuff up and then posts about it. Yawn.

  45. Ling M. October 10, 2009 at 10:12 am #

    This award may be better regarded as one honored to American people who’ve voted for President Obama and will keep supporting the vision he represents.

  46. mike hudson October 10, 2009 at 11:18 am #

    the award is a huge middle finger extended toward george w. bush, just like al gore’s award was. when bush’s daddy was president, they gave it to jimmy carter for the same reason. the norweigans are well intentioned, and the bushes are certainly deserving of any fuck you’s that are thrown their way.

  47. The Humanist October 10, 2009 at 11:37 am #

    John McCain, for once showing a lot of class:

    “But Obama’s former rival for the White House said he was happy with the decision. ‘I think all of us were surprised at the decision,’ he said. ‘But I think Americans are always pleased when their president is recognized by something on this order.'”

  48. Ward October 10, 2009 at 2:48 pm #

    The Nobel Peace Prize has become the Special Olympics–you get a trophy for just showing up.
    The Committee of Incontinent Peaceloving Norwegians didn’t mean no harm by this–they just wanted folks like Ling M. to feel good about themselves.

  49. Chris October 10, 2009 at 5:38 pm #

    “The award is a huge middle finger extended toward george w. bush, just like al gore’s award was. when bush’s daddy was president, they gave it to jimmy carter for the same reason.”

    Great criteria for choosing the recipient– to say FU to his predecessor. But you may be correct, at least in part. This would be consistent with what most of the Right believes; that the award is purely political, and has little to do with the actual merits of the recipient.

    I’m glad you see that, and admit it. And you gave 3 perfect examples of undeserving winners. Thanks.

  50. mike hudson October 10, 2009 at 10:28 pm #

    norway hates bilderburg.

  51. Ethan October 11, 2009 at 9:49 am #

    To be clear-
    1) My criticisms are generally different from those of the Right-wing; they may have some similar surface features, but they are structurally distinct, and definitely differently motivated. @Brian, your head need not explode quite yet;
    2) Regardless of my opinion, I actually do think Obama’s reaction was gracious, grounded, and “good for America” (whatever that really means), and I also quite recognize that the award doesn’t always reflect ‘achievement’ as much as ‘ambition’ (and I’m fine w/that);
    3) I think even a glance at the biographies of Obama and, to take a simple example, shortlister Morgan Tsvangirai, will illustrate why I think there are more deserving recipients, without even getting into the so-very-peaceful policies Obama inherited but continues to pursue (hey, has Bagram airbase been in the news much lately?)
    4) Some people, Joe Biden, Frank Rich and Richard Engle, for example, have come to the conclusion that we _do_ need a different approach in Afghanistan, and that narrowing our focus to Al Qaeda instead of country-building and the Taliban might work better. So, your claim that “If the Taliban return to power in Afghanistan, then that [9/11-scale attacks] will undoubtedly re-occur” is not shared by everyone and is certainly not nearly as absolutely true as you present it to be. Add to that, the 9/11 attacks were “planned” in numerous countries, including Germany, Canada and the US itself. So, it makes little sense to claim that by “fixing” Afghanistan we’ll somehow end or even necessarily impact Al Qaeda’s capability.

Contribute To The Conversation

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: