Mika Brzezinski notes similarity between conservatives attacking Obama over Olympics and criticizing Nobel Peace Prize

Come think of it, that's exactly what I asked my mother when she called to tell me this morning.

I think president Obama has done a decent job so far. But the prize shouldn't be awarded for doing a decent job, and you shouldn't get it just for replacing a terrible predecessor. It should be awarded for great accomplishments. I'm perfectly open to the possibility that Obama may in the future accomplish something nobel prize worthy, but he hasn't yet.

Correct, from what i have read he was nominated 12 days into his presidency what has he done???

Here's the article:

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.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts.

The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

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. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses 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.''

The criteria the committee gives are either nebulous ("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"), or they seem celebrate uninspired competence ("Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting"). Giving a nobel prize for taking a constructive role in climate talks is, to me, comparable to giving a kicker the heisman for making his extra points.

I'm not trying to troll, and I have been as disgusted as anyone with right's puerile cheering for the failure of the president, I'm just calling it like I see it.

Thanks for the link to the article.

Can't say it swayed me.

While I applaud President Obama's good intentions, I still fail to see what he has accomplished thus far to justify this award at this time.

BTW, I'm not a Con Obama boo bird. While I don't agree with all his policies, I hope he will succeed in doing what's best for the American people. And if he can somehow help in making this world a better & safer place for all, he would get my vote...if I had one...for The Nobel Peace Prize.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/09/world/AP-EU-Nobel-Peace-Citation.html?_r=1

He's reversed the foreign policy of the United Staes, the most militarily powerful nation in the world, from neocon ideas toward ideas more respectful of other nations and their rights.

Just one example: Removing the missiles from E. Europe, for example, is soemthing the neocons would never have even considered. But those missiles were understandably a huge annoyance to Russia. How would we like it if Russia had missiles in Canada? By our removing them Russia is more likely to help us pressure Iran. One thing folows from another, toward more peace.

He's reached out to Muslems, to quiet down antagonisms (Cairo speech.)

He's presented a more humble America, more eager to work with, rather than dominate other countries -- an essential move -- we need international cooperation to fight terrorism.

As a general matter, this change is HUGE. We don't see it as much in America, and many Americans are angry that we aren't pushing our strength around more, and they complain of "apology tours" and the like, but the rest of the world sees it, appreciates it, and it bodes well for peace.

I just looked it up and I think he is talking about the back and forth between Bush and Gore talking with the media after the movie came out when Bush was asked if he would see it-- "'I doubt it and in my judgment we need to set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects, and focus on the technologies that will enable us to live better lives and at the same time protect the environment.' Gore responded that 'The entire global scientific community has a consensus on the question that human beings are responsible for global warming and he [Bush] has today again expressed personal doubt that that is true.' White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino stated that 'The president noted in 2001 the increase in temperatures over the past 100 years and that the increase in greenhouse gases was due to certain extent to human activity”'.

Don't you just love it when your president is so stupid that he says something so moronic to the media that his own press secretary has to directly contradict him to "clarify". Good times, good times. Can't say I miss them though. I actually forgot how scary Bush was to listen to at times. Yea well, 99.9 percent of the worlds scientist agree means we still got that .1% in our corner - thats our base right there. Its actually 100 percent of real scientists who say global warming is being caused by carbon dioxide emissions by humans. The .1% are posing as scientists and if you glance at their credentials are actually with some corporation 10 times out of 10. So in review, Gore did not point fingers in his movie but just stated facts, Bush didnt see it but still decided to make an asinine comment for kicks, his press secretary had to tell everyone he was wrong (we were used to it at that point) and conservatives on the news say Gore won the noble prize for making bush look dumb. First, Bush alone makes himself look dumb - its effortless for him. He has made it an art form and two, this is a really important issue that Gore was able to bring to the center of national attention in a pretty uneducated and biased country through a movie. It wasn't just a movie, it was environmental activism without spending lobbying or campaign money to cheat. If we fix this problem and prevent a catastrophe (im still skeptical) than Gore will be one of the major reasons why I have no doubt.

I agree. They made this into some commentary on why Gore and Carter didnt deserve it and they both DEFINITELY did deserve it. I think arafat also did but I see how that could be debated although looking back retrospectively it is now pretty clear how far rabin and arafat both went to achieve something as monumental difficult as peace in the middle east. Its just upsetting that these people are getting bashed for a noble peace prize when you consider what they actually did, they likely all deserve monuments. These are huge issues - global poverty and disease, global warming and the middle east are 3 of the biggest problems the international community continuess to face. I think we could use more leaders like those above who aren't afraid to put all of their determination and will into an honorable cause.

I think Obama knows he doesnt deserve it though which makes it very weird to accept something when you know you shouldn't have it. I think one day Obama may do something worthy of a noble peace prize but that day certainly has not yet come. So I think when he accepts the award, he should accept it on behalf of his inspirational hero Mahatma Gandhi. Besides the obvious reason that the symbol of peace of the 20th century even up until today was never awarded a noble peace prize because Noble decided to write in the rules that only living people could be awarded - he was assassinated the year he was going to win they just didnt give out an award that year, I think The reason is at least 2 fold. One, obama is getting this award for his ability to inspire the world and a portrait of Gandhi hangs in his office which remains Obama's inspirational guiding light. Two, Martin Luther King Jr has said that the civil rights movement relied completely upon Gandhi's strategies concerning peace to promote social change and combat social injustice. As a result of MLK's determination and Gandhi's brilliant strategy, civil rights reform was passed, schools were desegregated and eventually, we elected in our first black president. There are other ties as well but these 3 are the most important. I think it will send a strong message too if he does this - he will be telling the world that he knows he hasn't earned it yet but he plans on spending the rest of his years in office promoting peace and justice and equal rights to earn his own. He is also honoring a global legend who outside of the above had a powerful influence on Nelson Mandela and the end of apartheid. He also influenced countless others all around the world and stood as a champion of the underrepresented people against corrupt social constructs. I think it would come across beautifully.

Can it be that no conservatives from the U.S. won the award! I mean Teddy won the peace prize as a Republican President, but he was a PROGRESSIVE not a conservative. Again is it jealousy??? Also someone will disagree with what I just said.