The announcement that Barack Obama will receive this year’s Nobel Peace Prize only 10 months into his presidency surprised many, including us. Even more surprising, Obama was nominated for the award only 12 days after he took office. Now F.P. Passport has taken a look at what Obama did in those 12 days to attract the attention of the Committee. [%comments]
A Really Productive 12 Days
TAGS: Barack Obama, Nobel Prize
and 
. You can also watch it on 
The Nobel Prize for Peace was completely discredited when Arafat–a lifelong terrorist who died one of the richest men in the world after stealing billions in international aid from his own people–was awarded it. So debating whether Obama deserved the Prize is a little like questioning a lunch reimbursement on Enron’s books.
“Why is everyone confounding the date of nomination with the date of selecting the winner.”
The real question is what is the time period to consider for evaluating the nominee’s achievements. Is it the 12 months prior to the nomination date? Is it for lifetime achievement? Is it the previous calendar year?
Regardless, Obama doesn’t deserve the award and perhaps should not even have accepted it. The most important thing he has done is win an election, and plenty of people have done that. I would have applauded him if he said “Thanks, but there is so much more I want to accomplish so I do not accept.”
Definitely an out-of-place award. What has Obama done on behalf of peace? taking Bush out of office? not really, he would have had come out of it anyway.
Hopefully this award works as a loan that he would have to pay for over his time in office. Using his political power on behalf of peace.
I love to watch people bend over backwards to justify Obama even coming within a sniff of such a prize. I’d really love to get a look at the other accomplished people that were nominated. Only then will we really see how terrible this error was. For those that think that his stance on aggressive interrogation techniques is all that meaningful you’ve lost a sense of history. Ever been in one of those quiet rooms, just you and your buddy, where nobody else can witness? Although he means well, it’s meaningless pandering. Nuclear proliferation? You must be kidding me. That’s the worst joke of all. Even if achieved completely – the cat’s out of the bag already. It’s the knowledge that’s the problem, and he can do nothing about it. Just waiting for the Heisman now…I hear he’s got a great shot.
Since Obama really won the Nobel for not being like George Bush, rather than for any thing he actually did, I suggest it is really we, the American people who elected him, who should receive the Prize. Or, since he is our federal head, we could look at it as him accepting it on our behalf. Good job, America!
The dates and deadlines are irrelevant; one doesn’t have to be a sitting head of state to be nominated. It seems that the Nobel committee is happy to award the prize to people simply for trying to make the world better, not necessarily for having accomplished the things they proposed.
Many past recipients would have been out of the running (considered “terrible errors,” perhaps) if the completion of one’s goals was a requirement: Aung San Suu Kyi (democracy in Burma — not yet), Woodrow Wilson (lasting peace in Europe after WWI — didn’t work), the Dalai Lama (autonomy for Tibet, and, um, global peace and compassion — nope). Carl von Ossietzky opposed Hitler’s rearmament of Germany. Should he have been disqualified because Germany still started a war?
I’m as frustrated as anyone with Obama’s record so far and his list of ambitious yet unaccomplished goals. Perhaps they Nobel committee feels the same way, and awarded the prize to motivate/pressure the president to follow through.
David, who posted a bit above, has this one down, Freaking Yasser Arafat won it…
The Nobel Peace prize is starting to look like the award that the committee sends out to get attention to it’s winners in the real categories.
I mean, would the average person really care or even know that Oliver Williamson won the prize in Economics? Probably not, so how would they get all the free press that makes average person aware that they are still giving out these prestigious awards?
Too bad they don’t hand them out posthumously, Anna Nicole could brought in some sweet press.
Dear Charles;
Well, if we follow your reasoning- should anyone at any time, any place deserve such an award. Seems like all those who got it or who were nominated in the past– in some way tried to deal with the peace question and made some sort of contribution in that regard (however small). That does not count for something? ARe you suggesting that if peace is not possible- then get rid of the award altogether? Perhaps the question has not been asked– what did he get the award for? And I would say– for bringing peace back to the table on the real grounds that there are real differences between us that need to be taken into account, that do make for conflict, but that need, at least, to be recognized– if only so as to avoid extreme confrontation of the sort that no one wants. On that count, he deserves a medal.
So if knowledge is the problem, is not knowledge also the solution- that is just Obama’s point!