Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize and I feel safer already.
No need to worry that he has peaked too soon - over the next few years the Nobel Committee can still award him prizes in economics and literature.
MORE: Mickey says Obama should make like a Cubs fan and throw it back.
THAT WAS SPECIAL: The other half of the special relationship is not cheering, at least in the Times Online:
The award of this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.
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.
...
Mr Obama becomes the third sitting US President to receive the prize. The committee said today that he had “captured the world’s attention”. It is certainly true that his energy and aspirations have dazzled many of his supporters. Sadly, it seems they have so bedazzled the Norwegians that they can no longer separate hopes from achievement. The achievements of all previous winners have been diminished.
OCTOBER WISDOM: This is the time of year when we take guidance from Derek Jeter, who once observed that "No one wants to hear about potential; you have to go out and do it.'' Not where the Nobel Committee is concerned.
PILING ON: Great reax at InstaPundit. I hate to chose but my fave so far might be "“How do you say ‘jumped the shark’ in Norwegian?”
IF ONLY: It will be Mission Accomplished for the Nobel Committee if George Bush reacts with "Is this a cruel hoax?" He won't.
GOING FOR THE GOLD: Put together the Olympian snub of Chicago and the absurdly premature prize to Obama and what is the message from the international movers and shakers (*)? We love you, Obama, it's your country we have a problem with.
That is not a great role for a President to let himself be cast in, although it does fit perfectly with his Apology Tours.
Expressions of doubt as to whether this helps prize Obama are everywhere - here are The Note and TNR. I think this silly award could trigger a turn in conventional wisdom. Since there seems to be widespread agreement that apparently some of Obama's supporters have gone overboard, the newly fashionable position will be "I support him, but I'm not insane about him". Once people start feeling obliged to separate hype from reality and pay attention to Obama's flaws, they will probably find a few.
This is not exactly an "Emperor has no clothes" moment; more like, "The Emepror is not quite as well dressed as some people have been screaming at me".
(*) For purposes of this insight the international community is monolithic.
WE CUT TO THE RANGER:
The problem for Obama is it simply brings into sharp focus the fact that he has never really done anything in his life. When Republicans said that during the election, a lot of people took it as "just politics." Now they have a glaring example of it staring them in the face. If the guy could win a Nobel Prize for doing nothing, then maybe he really did
get into Columbia,
get into Harvard Law,
get selected Harvard Law Review editor,
get a $150K book deal,
get a job at a big name Chicago law firm,
get elected to the State Senate,
and the US Senate
all by doing pretty much nothing.
For Obama, 100% of life is just showing up.
Not since "The Tuxedo" has an empty suit been so powerful.
Mickey's right.
Posted by: daddy | October 09, 2009 at 07:19 AM
Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize as much as Roman Polanski deserves the Impulse Control Prize.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | October 09, 2009 at 07:20 AM
The Cubs-- they play in Cominskey Stadium, right?
Posted by: peter | October 09, 2009 at 07:23 AM
Maybe this is a secret plot by Bill Whittle to heap more ridicule on Obama. It is SO over the top it's comical.
Posted by: Janet | October 09, 2009 at 07:23 AM
Everyone's forgetting his successful mediation of the Henry Louis Gates conflict.
Posted by: Tom T. | October 09, 2009 at 07:25 AM
Holy Sh*t.
Krugman's been even more devalued.
Posted by: Jane | October 09, 2009 at 07:25 AM
Mickey is right.
Posted by: saveliberty | October 09, 2009 at 07:33 AM
Talk about grade inflation.
Posted by: d-man | October 09, 2009 at 07:37 AM
As someone (over at NRO's The Corner, I think) noted - the Nobel nomination deadline was February 1st, which meant Obummer had only been in office 10 days.
I think this "prize" only serves to make him look more the fool!
Posted by: centralcal | October 09, 2009 at 07:40 AM
It only shows how desperate the rest of the world is to denigrate American Exceptionalism by giving the prize to an American who does not believe in that thesis. It is more of "pie in our face" than even the IOC refusal. And Obama is so ignorant to not even understand the subtle arch-critisism since he thinks its about him, when this time its really about us.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | October 09, 2009 at 07:42 AM
I'm glad he got it. I wouldn't want anyone I know or respect to get it.
Posted by: Janet | October 09, 2009 at 07:44 AM
...like the plague, or dysentery.
Posted by: Janet | October 09, 2009 at 07:46 AM
This is a new category, "Taking the Piss Prize".
Posted by: PeterUK | October 09, 2009 at 07:48 AM
"It's Possible [Seth Leibsohn]
This whole prize will actually be seen as absurd by a lot of people — here and abroad. Even by people who would someday like Barack Obama to win it. It is just too obvious this is way too soon and way too precatory. It may even have the effect of diminishing the currency of the award."
From NRO The Corner
It MAY...diminish the currency of the award!
Ya think!?
Posted by: Janet | October 09, 2009 at 07:51 AM
Well, it's not like the award's currency has not already been debased what with all the jokers to which it has been awarded in the past .....
Posted by: Flodigarry | October 09, 2009 at 07:55 AM
You should be proud that Obama is in there with Arafat!
Posted by: PeterUK | October 09, 2009 at 07:59 AM
Would be intersting to know when they made their final choice. Was it a last-minute one to compensate for the IOC fiasco?
Posted by: DG Forbes | October 09, 2009 at 08:09 AM
Truly, we're living in some kind of Bizarro-World, we're down is up, wrong is right, and evil is good.
Next up ..... The Roman Catholic Church makes Obama a saint.
Posted by: fdcol63 | October 09, 2009 at 08:17 AM
There were over 200 nominations for 2009 and 1 man and 4 women (1 of whom is progressive and another of whom is a democratic socialist) give the award to someone who had been in office less than 2 weeks when the deadline for nominations arrived.
Again, it's all about Bush . . .
Posted by: Barbara Y | October 09, 2009 at 08:18 AM
Does this mean that this guy really won the Nobel Peace Prize?
Posted by: Janet | October 09, 2009 at 08:19 AM
So, I wonder, is this the "international community" trying to force Obama into the most conciliatory posture possible? I wonder what this bodes for Afghanistan policy?
Posted by: Pofarmer | October 09, 2009 at 08:28 AM
Cool--they're counting on him to carry out the Goldstone plan--denying Israel's right to defend itself--and remove one unwanted member of the UN . Next year the prize will go to Baradei for hiding Iran's nuclear capabilities.
And to think I used to laugh when the Seventh Day Adventists said the UN was born in "iniquity and sin". It may not have been born in it, but it's dying that way.
Posted by: clarice | October 09, 2009 at 08:31 AM
Yes it's a price for his attempts at our disarmament, you can't read it any other
way. OT, but this Dunn cat, is the slimiest
end of a Denebian slime devil, to keep the
Trek metaphor alive. He's the father of a special needs child, who has accused of being a tool of Scientologists, plagiarism,
the reason for McCain's loss, et al
Posted by: narciso | October 09, 2009 at 08:36 AM
So, I wonder, is this the "international community" trying to force Obama into the most conciliatory posture possible? I wonder what this bodes for Afghanistan policy?
Posted by: Pofarmer | October 09, 2009 at 08:28 AM
I was thinking the same thing. Keeps him from bombing Iran, from sending more troops to Afghanistan.
On the other hand, it does internationally validate all of Bush's policies which Obama has continued (Rendition, GITMO [since Holder just said it won't be closed any time soon], Iraq [since Obama is now just implimenting Bush's plan], Assasination by drone). It even endorses direct action by troops on the ground, given that Obama authorized the SF strike in Somalia recently. Funny how for the lefies of the world, having Obama in charge makes all of those policies ok.
As John Stewert would say, 'Thats nice, now fix the economy!'(And I would add, win in Afghanistan too!)
Posted by: Ranger | October 09, 2009 at 08:43 AM
"'Thats nice, now fix the economy!'"
That's easy, get the govt out of the way.
Posted by: Pofarmer | October 09, 2009 at 08:51 AM
As Andy McCarthy at NRO's The Corner said:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODIzNzJmOGQ0NGI4OTNlZjliOGVjMGY1OTBmMjY0OTA=
" ... The transnational progressives who pass out these accolades believe America is the problem in the world, the main threat to peace, the impediment to 'progress,' etc. The award is a symbolic statement of opposition to American exceptionalism, American might, American capitalism, American self-determinism, and American pursuit of America's interests in the world. That is why Obama could win it based on only 10 days in office — merely by capturing the White House and the levers of power, he stands to do more for the Left's "knock America off its pedestal" program than any figure in history. .."
Posted by: fdcol63 | October 09, 2009 at 08:51 AM
Rick Moran thinks this might give him aa boost in popularity sufficient to sweep the health care monstrosity into existence, I hope he's just hyper ventilating. I hope that at last people will acknowledge what an uttern joke this particular award has become.
(Another example of why the rich shouldn't set up charitable and do good ops with their money--it always falls into the control of leftwing lunatices. Buy yachts! Pay tons of women alimony! Anything..don't give it away like this!
Posted by: clarice | October 09, 2009 at 08:53 AM
Worthless. Both of them.
Posted by: Mustang0302 | October 09, 2009 at 08:55 AM
"'Thats nice, now fix the economy!'"
That's easy, get the govt out of the way.
Posted by: Pofarmer | October 09, 2009 at 08:51 AM
Funny, but now that its clear that the Porkulus is a failure Dems want to use Republican ideas to bail themselves out:
But with unemployment reaching nearly 10 percent, many lawmakers are feeling pressure to act. Some of the proposals come from the Republicans' playbook and focus on tax cuts... http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091008/D9B76AUO0.html>AP
Posted by: Ranger | October 09, 2009 at 08:57 AM
LOL
The Russians noticed.
Apparently they don't like the new missle plan any better than the old one.
Who'd a thunk?
LUN.
Posted by: Pofarmer | October 09, 2009 at 08:57 AM
The Nobel Peace Prize has been a joke for years, but it has now officially jumped the shark.
Most likely they had been planning to award it to Teddy Kennedy but had to go to plan B when Teddy inconveniently kicked the bucket.
Posted by: jimmyk | October 09, 2009 at 09:00 AM
This does seem to be a sign of desperation on the international leftist elite's part. I would have thought they would have waited until 2012 to drop this just in time to give Obama a bump for his re-election. They must fear that he is on the verge of being overwhelmed at this point.
Posted by: Ranger | October 09, 2009 at 09:03 AM
Nahh .... a posthumous award to Teddy would have been perfect for them if they'd wanted to do that.
Posted by: fdcol63 | October 09, 2009 at 09:04 AM
It's time for some new prizes that actually mean something.
Posted by: Fritz | October 09, 2009 at 09:06 AM
" .. This does seem to be a sign of desperation on the international leftist elite's part. .."
I think you're right, Ranger, especially when you consider the downward spiral that the Left is in right now in Europe.
They've lost a lot of popular support and are the weakest they've been in decades.
Posted by: fdcol63 | October 09, 2009 at 09:06 AM
OH, my
"Pelosi said lawmakers need to hear from economists before settling on a package to create jobs. "What is it that we can afford? What works the fastest?" Pelosi said."
NOW, they're worried about what we can afford?
Please.
Posted by: Pofarmer | October 09, 2009 at 09:07 AM
"which meant Obummer had only been in office 10 days"
Awarded for taking his country from a 1st world country to a 4th world country in only 10 days.
Posted by: Pagar | October 09, 2009 at 09:07 AM
It's time for the rest of us Americans who still believe in American exceptionalism, American self-determination, and American capitalism to WAKE THE F**K UP! and DO SOMETHING to stop these people.
Posted by: fdcol63 | October 09, 2009 at 09:09 AM
The network has just announced that Barack has won "Dancing with the Stars 2010," and Michelle has been awarded the "Distinguished flying Cross of Luxembourg."
Posted by: Original MikeS | October 09, 2009 at 09:18 AM
Hmm, this explains his dithering on an Afghanistan decision. The "Prize" was far more important than the lives of our troops.
Posted by: SWarren | October 09, 2009 at 09:20 AM
Good grief.
Posted by: Sue | October 09, 2009 at 09:20 AM
Ha! Original MikeS
and from the other thread-
((Obama is better than nothing...,
This was their first mistake
Posted by: Captain Hate))
Posted by: Janet | October 09, 2009 at 09:25 AM
After reading part of the citation for the award, it is clear that the committee suffered from the same afliction as most Obama voters. They read into him what they wanted to hear him say, rather than what he had really said and done. For example:
Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
Really? Hasn't the main point of Obama's policies been to actualy ignore these issues rather than to push them? The man turned a blind eye to the theft of the Iranian election and the brutal suppression of those who tried to oppose it.
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.
This part shows just how disconnected the committee is from the real world (and controdicts the previous part of the citation). Unless they mean that he is going to turn a blind eye human suffering and accept any tyrant to "maintain the peace."
Obama is now saying that we can make a deal with the Taliban (you know, those guys who destroyed cultural monuments and executed people for playing cards or watching TV). How does that fit with "values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population"? Sounds more like a repudiation of that than an afformation.
Posted by: Ranger | October 09, 2009 at 09:26 AM
Nahh .... a posthumous award to Teddy would have been perfect for them if they'd wanted to do that.
No, posthumous prizes are no longer allowed. I know this because they haven't given one to Julius Rosenberg.
Posted by: jimmyk | October 09, 2009 at 09:27 AM
Jennifer Loven of the AP wasn't enthused either.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2009/Oct/09/analysis__he_won__but_for_what_.html
Posted by: saveliberty | October 09, 2009 at 09:29 AM
Something to ponder from Yuval Levin at NRO:
Posted by: centralcal | October 09, 2009 at 09:29 AM
Ranger, you're looking for logic. That's not going to be productive here.
Posted by: Pofarmer | October 09, 2009 at 09:30 AM
...and narciso from the other thread-
"looks like I picked a wrong time to quit,..."
ha, really, what a joke! hahahahaha....
Posted by: Janet | October 09, 2009 at 09:32 AM
I think this will make O's meeting with his war team rather awkward to say the least. OR not? He could just choose not to send ANY more troops and therefore would support his getting the Nobel Peace Prize.
Posted by: bolitha | October 09, 2009 at 09:33 AM
It belongs right next to his appointment as editor of the Harvard Law Review.
Clarice,
He's already beginning to bleed politically from the reality of his obvious mediocrity. This isn't going to help.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 09, 2009 at 09:34 AM
((It is a dangerous thing for a president to become a joke,))
Too late.
Posted by: Janet | October 09, 2009 at 09:35 AM
Consolation prize for not winning the Olympics. Someone on MSNBC even said last Friday we were talking about the Olympics this Friday he's a winner! The Left will do anything to help Obama lose the loser label.
Posted by: maryrose | October 09, 2009 at 09:37 AM
Well, Obama did save or create two wars.
Posted by: PaulL | October 09, 2009 at 09:39 AM
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/10/palin_vaughn_rabinowitz_win_aw.html?hpid=opinionsbox1>WaPo
Making fun of Obama's Nobel, can't resist making fun of Sarah Palin. I hate these people.
Posted by: Sue | October 09, 2009 at 09:40 AM
Some one was saying something about his war team, in the LUN.
Posted by: narciso | October 09, 2009 at 09:41 AM
I wonder if any commentator, anywhere on the political spectrum, will offer a genuine straight-faced defense or case for this prize.
Olbermann will quote the Nobel Committee's words and call anybody that disagrees with them the worst person in the world.
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 09, 2009 at 09:42 AM
If anything, I think this is an excellent glimpse into the psyche of the socialist left european. They are "orgasmic" over the IDEA of Obama, the messiah who will bring the evil empire to heel and save the world--daisys in gun barrels, fairy rings instead of mushroom clouds, clown cars instead of greedy SUVS.
All you need is l-O-ve. Obama is MLK and Ghandi all rolled up into one. Why should he have to actually DO anything?
Posted by: verner | October 09, 2009 at 09:43 AM
One might almost be reminded of the Carter presidency.
Although Carter had to at least work for it a little.
Posted by: PD | October 09, 2009 at 09:46 AM
The problem for Obama is it simply brings into sharp focus the fact that he has never really done anything in his life. When Republicans said that during the election, a lot of people took it as "just politics." Now they have a glaring example of it staring them in the face. If the guy could win a Nobel Prize for doing nothing, then maybe he really did
get into Columbia,
get into Harvard Law,
get selected Harvard Law Review editor,
get a $150K book deal,
get a job at a big name Chicago law firm,
get elected to the State Senate,
and the US Senate
all by doing pretty much nothing.
For Obama, 100% of life is just showing up.
Posted by: Ranger | October 09, 2009 at 09:46 AM
Making fun of Obama's Nobel, can't resist making fun of Sarah Palin
Richard Cohen must be auditioning for Letterman's spot because his writing has gotten increasingly trite, mean-spirited and rife with errors.
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 09, 2009 at 09:48 AM
We can only hope this is the apex of affirmitive actions. I can't imagine how AA could top this.
Posted by: Publius, a.k.a. The Idaho Publius | October 09, 2009 at 09:50 AM
And thinking of Carter, wasn't it he who funded the mujaheddin in Afghanistan that later became the Taliban and al-Qaeda? Given that Obama now apparently wants to cozy up to the Taliban, perhaps the next phase in his ongoing campaign to be like Jimmy will be to declare al-Qaeda our allies.
Posted by: PD | October 09, 2009 at 09:51 AM
What if Obama wins the award for literature? He could, you know. If they wanted to.
Posted by: Sue | October 09, 2009 at 09:53 AM
LOL. Someone commenting at Tapper's said this is the first time a teleprompter has won the award.
Posted by: Sue | October 09, 2009 at 09:56 AM
As in other spheres, Barack Obama is out Cartering Carter. This would be really distressing if it were something serious but as things stand it is bad enough. Yet another example of affirmative action slipping her moorings and going global. The NPC is now playing by T-ball rules; just showing up is more than sufficient and even that is fungible.
Posted by: megapotamus | October 09, 2009 at 09:56 AM
This whole absurd episode proves Rush's point that the libs can't help themselves. So filled with self importance, that they can't envision people not impressed with the Nobel Peace prize. They are blind to their hubris.
Posted by: Janet | October 09, 2009 at 09:56 AM
Man Centralcal you're up early:-)
Thought it was a joke when I checked in with Drudge. Sadly not....
The reaction on the announcer's face goes through some changes as he hears the Reporters Gasp At Obama Nobel Announcement.
At first he thinks it's acclaim--then he realizes it is NOT.
Posted by: glasater | October 09, 2009 at 09:57 AM
Rick and others.... mediocrity? Man, we long for mediocrity. We pray for mediocrity. Mediocrity is our greatest desire and need. Like the much maligned status quo in medicine it starts looking better the more you know of the alternative.
Posted by: megapotamus | October 09, 2009 at 09:58 AM
Cohen, who said the founding of the State of Israel was a mistake, among other gems,
although that image of the Swedes beating
themselves with birches has promise. Any insult from him, or any other of these other'credentialed moron's against Sarah, is a badge of honor. To Animal House, and Airplane I add Zoolander "am I the only one not on crazy pills"
Looking less bitterly at things, this reminds of the apochryphal Oscar Arias Peace Prize for Central America, he was given it in 1988, and because the Soviets imploded, the Sandinistas lost the election, the FMLN was forced to the negotiating table, et al. However, because
they were not totally vanquished, they were
able to ultimately win through the courthouse and at the ballot box, what they
could not on the battlefield.
Posted by: narciso | October 09, 2009 at 09:58 AM
Wonder if Obama has the stones to take up Micky Kaus' suggestion. (It would be the smartest thing for him to do.) We'll see.
Posted by: Appalled | October 09, 2009 at 10:01 AM
O won't give it back. It takes a narcissist with more brains to see that feigning humility in this way would bring him even more glory and adulation. No, only a decent man of good character or a very smart narcissist would give it back.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | October 09, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Also, he wouldn't dare insult socialist establishment by giving it back.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | October 09, 2009 at 10:05 AM
"Nahh .... a posthumous award to Teddy would have been perfect for them if they'd wanted to do that."
Certainly. Preferably in 1969.
Posted by: PeterUK | October 09, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Oh Appalled, you're such a kidder. There is zip, nada, no chance an insecure gasbag like Bammy refuses to take it. This provides validation for his election as it becomes obvious to many of the 52% that they were conned into ignoring a life of doing nothing.
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 09, 2009 at 10:06 AM
The Messiah shall not be mocked:
Posted by: SWarren | October 09, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Using the same standard as the Nobel Committee, the Department of Defense has decided to award me a Distinguished Service Cross, since I might someday do something really brave...
Posted by: LTC John | October 09, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Remember, if in your declining years you find yourself with a great deal of money and fear if you leave it to your heirs they will destroy themselves in desuetude--do not leave it to be managed by some do good foundation. Spend it. Spend it on yourself. Spend it on those who deserve it. Otherwise your wealth will become just another devil's plaything.
Posted by: clarice | October 09, 2009 at 10:14 AM
The submission rules make this joke seem even crueler. He would have had to been nominated less than two weeks into his Presidency.
February – Deadline for submission. The Committee bases its assessment on nominations that must be postmarked no later than 1 February each year. Nominations postmarked and received after this date are included in the following year’s discussions. In recent years, the Committee has received close to 200 different nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. The number of nominating letters is much higher, as many are for the same candidates.
February-March – Short list. The Committee assesses the candidates’ work and prepares a short list.
I know .. it must have been his time at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) that got it for him.
Posted by: Neo | October 09, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Megapotamus,
I firmly believe that Obama, should he put whole hearted effort into the endeavor, has the potential to rise to midlevel mediocrity. The fact that there is no evidence of him ever having put much effort into anything substantially mitigates the probability that he will ever actually achieve mediocrity but I still believe that the seeds of mediocrity are there and that, given even a slightly below average amount of effort on his part, they could grow and blossom to the point where one might hope to see substandard fruit actually almost ripen.
See - I'm an optimist.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 09, 2009 at 10:18 AM
I can use a goo laugh about now ..
I think I will nominate Tom Maguire for the Nobel Peace Prize next year.
Posted by: Neo | October 09, 2009 at 10:21 AM
That would be only if he were striving for the right thing, Rick. His whole goal is to
'fundamentally transform this country' as he announced five days away from the election. He's made yeoman steps in that regard, but it's still an incomplete. In the LUN, I think Ignatius's indication he's lost his mind.
Posted by: narciso | October 09, 2009 at 10:26 AM
U.N. Decries Obama’s Preemptive Nobel Peace Prize
Posted By Scott Ott On October 9, 2009 @ 8:40 am In Global News, U.S. News | 6 Comments
(2009-10-09) — United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today rejected in the strongest possible terms the deployment of the Nobel Peace Prize to U.S. President Barack Obama, which he said was “reminiscent of George W. Bush’s disastrous doctrine of preemption.”
“The Nobel committee, perhaps persuaded by faulty intelligence and a hyped sense of urgency, made an historic blunder in its rush to judgment,” said Mr. Ban. “When Obama was nominated in February, he had just taken office…so the prize was awarded based on his speeches as a presidential candidate, not even for the good intentions that he has implemented in the past eight months.”
Wei Jingsheng, a Chinese dissident known as ‘the father of Chinese democracy’, is among the 176 nominees who lost to Mr. Obama, but said he was honored to have been edged out by “a man of such staggering accomplishments.”
“I was imprisoned more than 15 years for speaking out against a totalitarian communist regime,” said Mr. Wei, “A book of my essays was published from my writings, initially scribbled on toilet paper in jail. But I have to admit that Barack Obama has written two books and given hundreds of autobiographical speeches with thinner material than that. I bow respectfully to the father of global peace.”
***
Posted by: clarice | October 09, 2009 at 10:27 AM
CH:
As of now, Obama has not closed Guantanamo, prosecuted a torturer, pulled out of Iraq, pulled out of Afghanistan., or even begun to stop global warming.
Even if you are a Eurolefty, (which, it seems, you are not), this nomination is absurd. Obama ought to be smart enough to see that from the reaction people have had, even if he does not sense the utter absurdity of this on its face.
I don't know what he'll do. I think, however, the nation may get its fix on this guy (finally), when he makes his statement.
Posted by: Appalled | October 09, 2009 at 10:27 AM
"LOL. Someone commenting at Tapper's said this is the first time a teleprompter has won the award."
IMO, the world would have been better off if, instead of awarding it to Obama, it had been awarded to the teleprompter.
Posted by: Pagar | October 09, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Changed my mind. Lefties with brains will advise him to give it back and, as usual, he will do what they tell him to do. He'll give it back.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | October 09, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Well, his teleprompter will accept the award; just you watch.
====================================
Posted by: That wagging you see is just the teleprompter's tale. | October 09, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Nobel Peace Laureate Barrack Hussein Obama and the First Lady Laureaette Michelle Obama.
Posted by: PeterUK | October 09, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Zero has postponed his 'Nobel' speech to 11 AM Eastern.
Descisions...descisions..........
Posted by: glasater | October 09, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Zero has postponed his 'Nobel' speech to 11 AM Eastern.
Descisions...descisions..........
Good thing he was able to decide on that piece of art that's about indecision.
(Wanna bet eventually it comes out that Michelle wanted him to accept?)
Posted by: Rob Crawford | October 09, 2009 at 10:38 AM
The Nobel prize winners of the last decade or so have one thing in common: they are antagonistic to Israel and by extension to the Western civilization.
Posted by: Anna | October 09, 2009 at 10:38 AM
No way he can accept it.
Posted by: Extraneus | October 09, 2009 at 10:40 AM
No way he can accept it.
Don't forget the audacity of hope.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | October 09, 2009 at 10:41 AM
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTZlMDVlZTJkMDljOGU3ZWU0MGM3NzNlMWUwZTllMzY=>Limbaugh on the Peace Prize [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
From Politico:
Conservatives pounced on the the Nobel Prize committee's decision to award President Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, with talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh calling it a "greater embarrassment" than losing the Olympics.
"This fully exposes the illusion that is Barack Obama," Limbaugh told POLITICO in an e-mail. "And with this 'award' the elites of the world are urging Obama, THE MAN OF PEACE, to not do the surge in Afghanistan, not take action against Iran and its nuclear program and to basically continue his intentions to emasculate the United States."
Limbaugh continued: "They love a weakened, neutered U.S and this is their way of promoting that concept. I think God has a great sense of humor, too."
Posted by: Ranger | October 09, 2009 at 10:41 AM
I'm in the no way he can refuse it camp.
Plus I think John Podhoretz has it about right:
The Michael Moore of Oslo
Posted by: centralcal | October 09, 2009 at 10:43 AM
LUN: DNC spokesthing says GOP is "siding with terrorists" for criticizing Obama's Nobel.
How can Obama possibly refuse the award? His own party says he'd be siding with terrorists!
Posted by: Rob Crawford | October 09, 2009 at 10:45 AM
DNC spokesthing says GOP is "siding with terrorists" for criticizing Obama's Nobel.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | October 09, 2009 at 10:45 AM
Yeah, that will work. Cause everyone's view for the last 8 years is that the GOP is soft on fighting terror. If this is all they can come up with, they are really hurting on this.
Posted by: Ranger | October 09, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Appalled, if he refused it (which if I were Axelrod I'd be telling him to do), that would be a brilliant political decision and one which the Nobel Committee served up on a silver platter. He could actually do something humble (rather than telling us about it) that would surely help his domestic approval ratings. Hell, he could probably get BamaDontCare passed on that: If Dear Leader could turn down such an honor, how could he not be for something that doesn't benefit us all?
Damn, now I really hope he doesn't turn it down.
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 09, 2009 at 10:51 AM
He should give the award to the families of fallen US soldiers who in fact have done more for peace than the entire nation of Norway has ever done.
Posted by: clarice | October 09, 2009 at 10:53 AM
You kiddin' me? With three or four lefties who he knows are smarter right now advising him to give it back? And explaining how much praise, awe, and adulation he'll garner for doing so? He's giving it back.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | October 09, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Narciso,
That WaPo article does an excellent job of fogging the actual chain of command. The fact that McChrystal's recommendations were allowed to grow mold in the Pentagon for over a month does not bode well for anyone actually in the theater of operations. The sight of Perfumed Princes struggling to avoid responsibility while seeking advancement and the limelight isn't new but it hasn't lost its ability to induce nausea either.
Where's Petraeus? (That could become a new board game.)
Posted by: Rick Ballard | October 09, 2009 at 10:56 AM