October 9, 2009
Open Thread on the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize
I'll get it started: if (and I'm just assuming here) the spirit behind awarding President Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize was that an Obama presidency, by itself, significantly increases the prospect of "improved international diplomacy" over that brought by its precedent, then I contend that the award really belongs to those U.S. voters who made this presidency possible, as I find no worthy actions thus far in the President's catalog. He is but the symbol of our intent.
I'll gladly surrender my two-cents share of the monetary prize in return for recognition of my role.
Also: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton must feel doubly robbed right now.
I make these comments as an enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama as president, from even before he announced his intention to run:
This is the prematurely boneheaded equivalent of hanging a "Mission Accomplished" banner 3 months after a now-6-years-&-counting war began.
He could have personally found the cure for cancer inside the White House & I still would be livid that this was awarded in his first year in office. No president, of any party, in any point in history, has ever done enough while in office less than a year to be worthy of this award.
It's now evident that the Nobel Committee is an arm of the Democratic party.
Any day Rush Limbaugh is proven correct is a bad day for me.
Posted by: =dan= at October 9, 2009 10:30 AM
This Wall Street Journal article goes into some of the other controversial Nobel decisions and how some of them were to try to push certain laureates to live up to the prize.
It's interesting to note that Gandhi never received a peace prize.
Also, the preview comment button is broke on this blog.
Posted by: Sumit Khanna at October 9, 2009 10:54 AM