Instead of just shaking their heads and moving on, they're going to try to make this into something he sought, that his ego demanded.

Worse, it'll feed the "Right/Left Shouty Red-Faced Cable News Smackdown" machine for another couple weeks. The worst of the Right's losers will get endless airtime to quip and snark about it. Gingrich, Delay, Buchanan, Liiiizzzz Cheney, all of them, have no doubt already been booked.

For what?

How about for saving the world from a McCain/Palin administration?

Even Axlerod said it was unexpected.

There's also going to be the, "he couldn't get the Olympics, but he got the Nobel?" talking point to look forward to. And the speeches about how his, 'failure,' to bring the Olympics to Chicago should have disqualified him from the Nobel.

And, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize is a liberal award anyway, and therefore not worthy of thought or consideration. Pansy liberals, with their penicillin and polio vaccines.

So what if it was "unexpected?"

I couldn't care less who gets the Peace Prize. My ire right now is that the Right, and even the Left, are approaching this news from the perspective of "Obama didn't deserve this". Their beef is with the president, not with the committee that decided to give him a great big blow job this morning. We're right back to last year when they were trying to portray him as some sort of star that didn't deserve his celebrity because (if you believe the lies) he hadn't really done anything.

I just hate that this is going to consume news cycles for the next week. And no matter what he does- accepts it, declines it, shits on it, whatever - they'll still make hay out of it.

No matter what Obama does, on any issue, he's going to be wrong. He's going to be a prima donna. It's the persona the media has spent two years building up, and it's the persona they're going to keep going to for their stories.

And while they're obviously wrong about a lot of that made-up persona, you know what? If he -is- egotistical, then fine. I'd still vote for him, and I'd still not mind his ego, hypothetical or real. Because despite this ego, again imaginary or not, he at least has some sort of intellect with which to -be- egotistical. He has some actual reason to believe he knows things, other than the vague murmuring ideal that God told him.

I actually want an egotistical president, if his or her ego is based upon merit. If a braggart has earned the right to brag, then at least he or she has done something worthy of swagger.

This, of course, goes with a simple caveat: testicle envy and attempts to make up for it do not count.

We must remember the IOC rejected Obama. They are more of an indicator of global opinion....

(Sarcasm intended)

Well, what's the answer to the "for what?" question?

I read the expanded definition of the Nobel Peace Prize and it states accomplishment in the following areas (expanded from just 'peace'):

1. Bringing peace
2. Fighting climate change
3. Reducing poverty

There is ZERO record on any of this -- especially in just 9 months in office. While other US presidents have been awarded this prize, none have received it in this short of time.

This was a political award, that could really sting.

He got this award, in my opinion, because he's "not Bush". This award was much about being anti-Bush than pro-Obama.

What are they going to say when they give him this award?

He gets the award for bringing peace to _______(?)

He gets the award for reducing poverty in ____(?)

He has reduced climate change by ______ (?)

He got this award--- as heard directly from the committee in Norway on the radio this morning --- for TALKING about peace. For saying the right things to the internation community.

Given that, let him get an oratory award.

Stunning that he's being awarded the "peace prize" just when he's considering escalating troops in Afghanistan.

Well, what's the answer to the "for what?" question?

I read the expanded definition of the Nobel Peace Prize and it states accomplishment in the following areas (expanded from just 'peace'):

1. Bringing peace
2. Fighting climate change
3. Reducing poverty

There is ZERO record on any of this -- especially in just 9 months in office. While other US presidents have been awarded this prize, none have received it in this short of time.

This was a political award, that could really sting.

He got this award, in my opinion, because he's "not Bush". This award was much about being anti-Bush than pro-Obama.

What are they going to say when they give him this award?

He gets the award for bringing peace to _______(?)

He gets the award for reducing poverty in ____(?)

He has reduced climate change by ______ (?)

He got this award--- as heard directly from the committee in Norway on the radio this morning --- for TALKING about peace. For saying the right things to the internation community.

Given that, let him get an oratory award.

Stunning that he's being awarded the "peace prize" just when he's considering escalating troops in Afghanistan.

Bob, I think the "unexpected" comment meant that Obama was not "seeking" it. But the right wing will blather on about him seeking it for ego purposes.

What?! Bush was president for eight years and all he got was two flying shoes past his head. (snark)

Also, expect to hear from all the pundits on the left: "Great award, let's talk about these wars." Perhaps a more valid point, but find me one person totally deserving of the NPP who didn't have other not so peaceful things going on.

@Terri: If you read their statement, they said that they put particular emphasis on his work towards nuclear disarmament, something he's been working toward since becoming a senator.

Terri, It's simple really,
A nomination is considered valid by the Nobel Foundation if it's submitted by a member of national assemblies and governments, including members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union; members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague and of the International Court of Justice at the Hague; members of Institut de Droit International; university professors of history, political science, philosophy, law and theology; former Nobel Peace Prize winners and board members of institutions that have previously won; and former permanent advisers to the Norwegian Nobel Institute.

Alfred Nobel said the Peace Prize, presented annually in Oslo, should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

Obama, who was "humbled" by the award, according to administration officials, was praised for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," the committee said.

Whether you like it or not, Obama is doing more to promote peace than anyone in the world at the moment. You may want to cynically characterize that as "talking" but he recently was able to move Iran to expose nuclear capability, has Israel talking again, energized the global community including the muslim world all in 9 months. Let's just suck it up, and give him one freekin' break shall we?

Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho of north viet nam were the 1973 winners of the nobel peace prize, for ending hostilities in the vietnam war. Le Duc Tho declined the award because peace had not been achieved.If the president has a shred of integrity, he will decline the award, based on the fact that he has not earned it. But, he will accept the award, because he has been rewarded for non-earned achievements all of his adult life. Why should this be any different?

"Rewarded for non-earned achievements all his adult life."

First, there's no such thing as a, 'non-earned achievement.' Either it's an achievement, or it's not. So maybe you mean, "rewarded for no achievement all his adult life." Fine. We'll take it from there.

Name one. And remember, try not to sound like a racist bringing up affirmative action in the process.

Good luck.

Jonah, you need to read this:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/09/obama/index.html

Um, they didn't give him the award for achieving peace in Afghanistan or Iraq. So, not really an appropriate analogy there.

My two cents...

I believe I said just a day ago, that the International Community sees President Obama differently than us. And maybe they see something that we don't see.
And for the haters is I find interesting is that so many of the right wing blow-hards were already pronouncing his presidency a fat failure, with a culture of corruption, etc etc. It seems to me if they(right and the left) get to judge him a failure after only nine months, isn’t it fair that someone else gets to judge him a resounding success after only nine months?

Just sayin’.

DaBomb, FTW.

And now we get to hear 24/7 coverage on this for days.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, 35,000 people stood in line in Detroit for 3,500 housing assistance slots.

122 people will die today due to no healthcare

100,000 people ill lose their jobs this week

and on and on

and how many murders on the streets of Chicago?

Jonah - or anywhere else in the world?

Chicago isn't leading the world in murders, are they? and, since this award had nothing to do with murder rates and everything to do with international diplomacy, what's your point?

QT

@QT- They don't have a point. That is all.
You cause that's what the Nobel Peace Prize Committee looks at, murder rates in CHICAGO.

WTF?

This is an intelligent and brief analysis of Nobel award to President Obama:

Cynics Miss Forest for the Trees – Nobel Recognizes Importance of Renewed American Global Engagement and Leadership

http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/1432

@Terri:

You're joking, right?

Our concern troll, Terri is back. Being concerned as always./Snark

Chicago has been on the list as Murder Capital of the World. This year is Caracus Venezuala.

Good company to keep.

Jonah: In the event you've forgotten, Chicago has a mayor, his name is Daley and HE is responsible for Chicago -- not Obama.

oh. okay, obama isn't responsible. it's Daley.

Big Picture everyone:

is getting rid of the world's #3 murderous dictator and liberating 10's of millions of Iraqi's is bad?

Quick fact check.

Chicago was the leading US city in murders LAST YEAR. In 2008. When Obama was not the president. I'm sure your concern over the life of Chicagoans was brought up at that point as well, correct?

This year our top city, at least as lists go, is New Orleans.

And our ranking worldwide is....#24.
.042 homicides per 1,000 people.

And I believe we are still waiting for that list of "non-earned" achievements.

You can paint the invasion and occupation of Iraq in whatever colors you want to paint them. Taken at face value, most would probably say "No, that is terrific."
But it is not as black and white as all that. Our occupation has done more than JUST overthrow Saddam Hussein. The subsequent period has also seen the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraq civilians, thousands of our troops, and a great straining of alliances with other countries and our own resources.

So, really, given the kind of analysis that would be needed to answer your question in actual realistic terms, most people have already given the answer as, "Yes. IS getting rid of dicator and liberating Iraqis IS bad."

@brentblah- It doesn't matter what you say, the concern trolls aren't listening.

They are a part of a cult of personality of people who are consistently negative and defeatist. That is all.

You can show them all the facts in the world, it doesn't make a difference.

@ DaBomb

I just always like things to be out there so at least no one can claim that we don't try to set them straight.

Also, I got to sneak in a jab at bad grammar, so that was fun.

Mr brentblah, have we not seen the deaths of hundreds of thousands of americans over the last 7 years?

Please. Get a Grip on reality.

My grip is there, friend.

Please explain exactly what you mean.

Are you comfortable blaiming the hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocent iraqi's on Bush?

Are you privy to how many innocent Iraqi's were killed prior to us coming in to liberate the country?

Keep on a trollin' jonah.

Why are you still here?

Hey Alex00 sup? Unable to handle opposion?

opposition....

Cross posted from another thread:

Just a reminder:

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS. It only makes them trollier.

trollier? LOL how adultish.

MSNBC....I think they should've waited a little bit... LOL

@Bob

Nope.

Listen to Alan Grayson:

http://girldujour.wordpress.com/2009/10/11/alan-grayson-gets-it-right-again/