I knew the bitter brew of the other side would come out.
First, Obama did not submit his name for this, in fact there was 12 days AFTER his inaugeration for the deadline. Eventually, we will know who submitted his name.
Second, Obama did not expect to win. He has not been in office for even a year, but the man has been talking peace and disarmament throughout his campaign into his presidency.
Third, there is no doubt that the George W. Bush regime screwed up things internationally and domestically. Is this a referendum? It could be, but don't expect any BUSH to grace any stage of Oslow, Norway any time soon.
Lastly, conservatives and Republicans if you are pissed, send it to Oslow, Norway. This nastiness, like your reaction to Chicago losing the Olympics for the USA leaves a nasty taste in many mouths, a.k.a., it does not look good on you and turn others away from your philosophy and the Republican Party.
John Miller, National Review:
Obama isn’t the first American president to win the Nobel Peace Prize, but he’s the first to win it without having accomplished anything…Obama’s award is simply the projection of wishful thinking.
Mickey Kaus, Slate:
Turn it down! Politely decline. Say he’s honored but he hasn’t had the time yet to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. Result: He gets at least the same amount of glory–and helps solve his narcissism problem and his Fred Armisen (’What’s he done?’) problem, demonstrating that he’s uncomfortable with his reputation as a man overcelebrated for his potential long before he’s started to realize it.
Michael Binyon, the Times of London:
Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.
Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.
Rachel Abrams, The Weekly Standard:
Not A Parody…This is too perfect. Obama could turn it down on the grounds that not all his peace plans have come to fruition yet, but why should he?
Gideon Rachman, the Financial Times:
I am a genuine admirer of Obama. And I am very pleased that George W Bush is no longer president. But I doubt that I am alone in wondering whether this award is slightly premature. It is hard to point to a single place where Obama’s efforts have actually brought about peace — Gaza, Iran, Sri Lanka? The peace prize committee say that he is being rewarded for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy”. But while it is OK to give school children prizes for “effort” — my kids get them all the time — I think international statesmen should probably be held to a higher standard.
And, last but not least, the Taliban:
“We have seen no change in his strategy for peace. He has done nothing for peace in Afghanistan.”
Turn it down? Please that is like Chicago winning the Olympics and saying, "Thanks, but no thanks." President Obama's vision was embraced, INTERNATIONALLY, every American should be PROUD. And FYI, the Dec. 10th Nobel ceremony in Oslo will be convenient for Obama, who will attend the Copenhagen climate conference, which begins Dec 7th. In other words, President Obama will give a KNOCK OUT SPEECH, and pick up his award. OK??
Conservatives, Republicans if you are Americans, "Get over it. And get patriotic to embrace this moment in time." That includes you, MORNING JOE. No upside? Please. These cable desks idiots are just that, idiots!!! And finally, this is the java jolt that President Obama and his White House needs.
President Barack Obama is the third sitting president to receive this award.