Page 2 of 7 First 12 3456 ... Last

Handicapped by success then?

Heh, I am so relieved to see Backroomers take such a thoughtful stance... Most other people I spoke to are indignant and hostile to my attempts to explain how Obama does not, or does not yet deserve the prize... So I gave up...

My only questioni s, why is it that the news seemed so relatively quiet about it? Most people I spoke were nto even aware of Obama's trophy.

Maybe it would be better seen as an encouragement, rather than a reward. He now has to justify being awarded it.
In related news, check out Neo-Con websites for some seriously funny .
E.g.http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:y_ne...9jCn18fv5zfNdF

Guys he derseves cause hes black! He's the desdcent of sharecroppers! His family wallowed under opression in the Jim Crow south!

How true, most of his appeal rest on the colour of his skin... Would Obama be chosen as a candidate if not because of his colour? Heck no. He would not have rose so high in the first place, before he got nominated either, if he was white. But that is politics - so nothing to grumble about here. It is not as if the business of politics even pretends to be fair and balanced (God, how FOX butchered that slogan... just like "maverick" and Sarah Palin)

Actually, his family didn't, since his father was Kenyan, and his mother was white.

Actually... umm - we know.

I wonder who the other 204 nominees were.

Pfft. He looks black therefore he is black. You crackers don't understand what he's been through.

Yes, I think he would have been chosen, regardless. He is very bright, a fine orator and spoke movingly to the spirit of the times. The great compliment to the American electorate from his election was that race didn't play too much a part in it, either positive or negative.

Not to mention that the Clinton campaign bungled quite a lot out of sheer arrogance - as did McCain.

He was an inspirational candidate for an electorate that wanted to hear some good things about their future. Now he's a president that needs to deliver. This is the same for anyone - aspiration is always more fun than practice.

Now, I might not disagree if you argued that he got the Peace prize because of his colour. That is the kind of empty-handed, paternalistic gesture at which we Europeans are terrifically good.

That is true, but notice I said that it was unlikely he would ahve risen to Senatorship in the first place, without his colour. What do you think? Being black in Chicago matters.

sums it up, people should stop doing this his job is hard enough without such pressure. Might even hurt their cause elevating him to high, give the man some time.

Beats handing it to a terrorist, I guess, but wth?

The deadline for nominations was Feb 1. So he was nominated on the strength of 11 days in office. And since then he has been all talk about hope and change, but has pretty much kept the course of the previous administration. What a joke the NPP has become.

Only if they proclaimed it openly as reducing racial tensions. He's not the first black to get the price and the colour of the peace price wnners seems to have mattered little before.

I get the feeling that some of the choises (like this year) are only there to attract attention, maybe because that committee only gives out one of the prices. Compare with last year with a reasonable winner, how many remember him?

Well, to be fair, it was always the weakest prize... Often times it was awarded to famous, but perhaps not as much deserving individuals.

Reagan ended the Cold War without firing a shot and Obama gets the NPP for good intentions. Just another example of the "Audacity of Hype".

Yep. But you forgot Reagan was a Republican war-hawk who spent untold billions on weaponry. How could those commies in the Nobel Prize Committee select him?

Very sad, because indeed, it was he who gave the final kick that brought down USSR. The Brezhnev economic stagnation crippled out industrial capacity and when the new arms race began, USSR could not take it.

However, at the same time, if not for that imbecile, naive fool of Gorbachev, USSR would have largely remained. He should have went the Chinese way - retaining the totalitarian rule but with capitalism. But he wanted both capitalism and democracy...

Now that I think about it, I usually gave Regan more credit than he deserved (think of the fact that it was he who started the large US national debt), but definitely, the bloke deserved some sort of a prize for his efforts.

Well, in fairness the Soviets kinda did it to themselves. There's been a lot of documentation coming out lately ... I mean, Reagan was on the right side of history, but he did not personally dismantle the Soviet Union, or play the key role in its collapse. That would be Gorbachev.

Anyway, I don't mean to derail the thread. Honestly, I think this is a net loss for Obama. Much better to get this sort of thing after you've done something.

AP, a senator is a state-wide office, so being black would have harmed Obama as much in downstate as it helped in in Chi-town. Note that the current mayor-for-life is white. You could (and should) make the argument that Obama would never have become a state legislator if he hadn't been black. That's fair.

I would've given the prize to Bush for ending Saddam's tyrannical regime.

Am I serious? Well, surely more serious than the Nobel comittee. What a joke this.


Ah well. They have been known to give the Peace Prize to peculiar candidates. Like Henry Kissinger, Yasser Arafat and mother Teresa.

Do they (the NPP selection team) ever reveal who came in 2nd, or runner-up?

A common misconception about the peace prize is that it's given based on what someone has already done; while in fact it's actually given just as much on the basis on what soeone might do in the future.

The peace prize is at its best when it works like a kick in the behind. It's not something you go into retirement with, it's a tool you're given to make your future work easier.

No.

I would rather have sources on that HoreTore... And not jsut from some random blogger...

I heard that Pol Pot and Hitler were the runners up.

Was just watching the news, they were showing what people from New York thought about it, asking questions from pedestrians and stuff. A guy said the exact same thing....the very same words nearly.

Well, if that is the case then I think they need to rethink when do they give away a Nobel prize....it's normally given when people actually do something....not for planning to do something.
On the other hand, if it's just for the Cario speech as everyone here is assuming.....then again....well....I don't know, compare it with when they gave the prize to the Lama or Mother Teresa, this seems kind of weak and pointless.

Eureka! All is revealed....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8298580.stm

I think the Nobel Committee has been imbibing that great Norwegian invention, LSD.

Or was it just a choice between him and Rush Limbaugh?

Denmark is off the hook, something is rotten in Norway.

Sources? Try Aftenposten, Dagbladet, VG, NRK and TV2 for the last....oh I don't know, 5 years or so?

I don't agree.

The nobel prize would lose its points if its only given to those who have already done their job. The entire point of the peace prize is to get people to do something.

Oh, and Jagland said that Obama got the prize for "strengthening international diplomacy and human relations".

....And not so shockingly, Mrs. Siv Jensen is "shocked"...I think this is the 12903895438577493 time that woman is shocked....

EDIT: Jagland is interviewed on NRK right now. He just confirmed everything I've said

EDIT2: Jan Egeland, head of NUPI, also agrees....

pity its not April fools.
he does not deserve that award. at least not yet.

um, NO.
so by that reasoning we should give the prize to everyone, because then they would be inspired to do some good towards mankind.
what if some dumb words by him causes a war, or makes something go badly wrong. guess those folks over at the Nobel peace prize association would look pretty dumb.
but once again, you cant expect them to not bow at the alter to obama, right?

Alright, I agree then.

Why, because that's how Alfred Nobel wanted it to be done?

Giving it to someone because of what they might achieve is just plain stupid. Why not give me the award, or any other random person?

Awards are meant for people who have accomplished something. Giving them to people because of what they might do is meaningless.

CR

Page 2 of 7 First 12 3456 ... Last