and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses. (emphasis added)

Hey Glenn, you forgot this part of Nobel’s will . . . not exactly consistent with someone presiding over 2 occupations, increasing the military budget, and launching incursions into the territory of an allied state, Pakistan.

There is no Nobel prize for journalism, and now we know why.

Isn’t there a prize for fiction?

it’s pretty clear that the prize was less about obama’s actual accomplishments and more about his not being bush. the cons are (correctly) interpreting this as an insult to them and their imperialist agenda of the last 8 years.

This is one of the most conflicted awards ever presented.

In one sense, we all hope that Obama will not just dig us out of Bush’s war holes, but elevate us to a new relationship with the rest of the world that is based on cooperation rather than confrontation. But the lesson to the future that arises from awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to someone who is launching predator drones which bomb civilians in Afghanistan, and who is considering sending more troops there do more of same escapes me. And Obama’s demonstrated reluctance to challenge any of the entrenched, unelected “intelligence community” or “national security community” cannot be ingored.

Nincompoop!

I like the observation that he accepts on behalf of the American people who elected him.

It is likely that the Committee intended the award for those of us who did so and gave it to him as our representative.

It would have been spread too thin otherwise.

Also, Nincompoop!

LOL. There is one for literature.

In his will, Alfred Nobel committed part of his estate for a prize “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations.”

I wonder is something gets lost in translation? Perhaps the Norwegian expression is more nuanced than the English language “Peace Prize.”

As I said, the prize is very often about intentions — the Chinese are still in Tibet, for instance, but the Dalai Lama won for his intentions.

That poor panda in the accompanying photo appears to be undergoing an uncomfortable medical procedure.

Glenn, I haven’t read your stuff before. You’re great. But Alfred Nobel did not foresee the era of George Orwell. War is peace and Gandhi lost to Henry the K.

If you want to argue Glenn’s opinion that Obama deserves the award, on the basis of his NOT being a peace-loving man, fine.

But the point of the piece was to put the media’s frenzy (not coincidentally in conjunction with the Gooper’s view of anything showered on Obama is felicitous at best and atrocious at worst), well, no.

I can understand the Prize committee.

He’s really a very likable guy.

Bush would sometimes scowl when the U.S. military was blowing the shit out of some place.

Not Obama. He’s always got that pearly-white smile. A much better smile, for example, than the cynical lip arrangement of Henry Kissinger.

With his inventions, Nobel probably contributed more to the waging of modern war than any other individual. The awards he created in recognition of positive human endeavors was largely an act of atonement. I think he had great insight into human strengths and weaknesses and the policies of our current governments and institutions would not surprise him.

I applaud the strong progressive advocacy on both foreign and domestic front. I not only applaud, I engage in it. I am for all the pressure, noise, and engagement we can muster. For my own part — and I mean it only as a description of my work, not as a prescription for everyone — I find it better to focus on the policies. I turn down the volume a bit on Obama bashing because in our simple-minded political sphere, about the only message heard by voters is “Obama bad.” Driving up the president’s negatives is just not what I want to do.

Right now, 10 months into an administration faced with global wreckage on economic and diplomatic fronts, I believe I gotta put energy into the effort to turn our country around. Once again, I speak only for me, and I’m not asking progressive Obama critics to adopt my strategy. Quite the opposite. Everyone should be led by their own conscience, and I am thankful so many more are engaged today than a decade ago.

As far as the Nobel Prize is concerned, I really don’t think it is a viable wedge point. Criticizing the award simply aids the enemy.

Kissinger also won a Nobel Peace Prize.

Regarding the state of journalism, has anybody read David D. Kirkpatrick’s article on health care legislation in today’s Times?

What do you think? It seemed to me he’s managed to make it sound as though the Baucus bill is the only one that is serious about cutting health care costs! And that’s why the lobbyists are fighting so hard.

How does Kirkpatrick manage this? Not one mention of a public option (which, of course, would trump any of the Baucus provisions in cutting costs, IMO). And that failure bespeaks of a serious distortion and malfeasance on the part of The Times.

Of all the commentary on the Nobel Peace Prize’s being awarded to the president, I have yet to see one in which the author admits he/she does not know Nobel’s intentions, or isn’t qualified to speak on the subject. That would be worth an award for journalistic honesty, anyway.

I know. Which means Obama surely deserves one.

I’m being silly. But so was awarding the Peace Prize to one who wages war and covers up war crimes.

Yes, the stiffing of Gandhi was an injustice — a black mark on the Nobel committee.

I’m really arguing that to take the moment of a U.S. president receiving the award as an opportunity to rail against Obama or the Nobel or whatever is wrong, especially a president faced with the wreckage of the Bush years.

It can be a moment to be hopeful, setting aside our anxiety, disappointments, cynicism and distrust.

The award for journalistic honesty is abnegation and scorn from one’s ‘peers.’

Malfeasance by the New York Times, a corporate owned media entity? Who’d have thunk it?

I gotta put energy into the effort to turn our country around

Agreed. There’s quite enough energy being expended into speculaton on the possibility that all that is good won’t be reached if Pres. O. doesn’t … (fill in the blank)

Hopeful? Based on what actions Obama has taken?

Me too. I thought it would take decades to rebuild the respect we had lost in the world, if it could be done at all. How long it would it take them to forget that walking, talking raised middle finger, John Bolton? I also thought that perhaps our economic decline and obvious military limitations might mean that the world would be simply indifferent and contemptuous of us. The award indicates that a big part of the world is relieved to view the Bush years as an abberation and eager to believe the U.S. can be a constructive influence for peace. If I were a citizen of some other nation, I think I would be very thankful for the election of President Obama, moved by his expressed goals, and hopeful that he can bring them about. If that hope collapses, it should be because it was a false hope, not because my cynicism contributed to it’s decline.

Colbert probably won’t be doing the Press Club again for awhile, either.

Thanks. I strongly believe in the affirmation of others’ conscience-based actions. While I might ask folks to pause a moment and examine their hearts before joining a chorus of criticism or becoming a courageous lone voice, I don’t ask others to set aside their own beliefs and adopt mine.

Clearly some awards are bestowed in recognition of ideals or goals and not merely individual achievement. The list of past laureates is no gallery of rogues but it contains a number of individuals one might find questionable.

I think Colbert knew he was only going to get one shot at it and it was a thing of great beauty. Hurray for him.

You might have missed Phoenix Woman’s post yesterday morning. Here it is:
http://firedoglake.com/2009/10/10/come-saturday-morning-credit-where-its-due/
She makes some good points.

I don’t think Obama would have a problem with Colbert but he made the Villagers uncomfortable, in addition to making them look a little foolish. For that reason he will probably never be invited back.

There are times when I wonder if anything would please Americans. Obama won the Peace Prize….the world will not explode or fall into utter darkness. Seems to me we should be glad for our country and for him. Perhaps it will spur him to do the things he promised. Why can’t we just accept it for what it is, and move on?

Alltime great Colbert; facts have a liberal bias. The Villagers purely hate that, it’s so often their undoing.

Well you know, somebody would find fault even if he took the wheel of the presidential limo and became NASCAR champion. “g”

Consider Henry the K.

He got the prize for working out a purported peace deal with Le Duc Tho.

The whole world wanted then and there to believe peace was at hand in Vietnam.

Turned out wishing and hoping were different from reality. Turned out Kissinger committed war crimes.

But at least for the moment, Kissinger had done something concrete in the apparent pursuit of peace.

What concrete steps had Obama taken toward peace 12 days into his presidency, when he was nominated for the Prize, or has he taken since?

Don’t start that rumor! The nuts would believe it and who knows what might happen ! :)

The venom coming from the right over the last 30 years or so has finally infected everything and everyone. We can’t even enjoy a bit of irony anymore.

He hasn’t been able to overcome 30 years of neglect and decline in 8 months, therefore he must be a colossal failure and Not. My. President. As far as I can tell, he’s better by a factor of the highest number you can come up with than what we’ve had for the last 24 years.

I have a lot of European friends from when my son attended the Lycee. I complained before the election that he wasn’t progressive enough for me. Their response, universally, was a) if Obama is elected it will show the world that America has grown up and b) you don’t want to get whiplash anyway, moving so fast from on end of the spectrum to the other.

The Nobel reflects that view from the world community that we have grown up. I’m proud the American President won. Go ahead, call me a Pollyana.

I agree. The committee apparently voted for him for the same reason many of us did. They liked the intentions he expressed and considered them as a huge contribution to the possibility of peace, in light of the environment created during the previous eight years. They apparently believed he still intends to promote those goals and wished to encourage their achievement. I’m glad they did.

Very well said, Twain. I, too, worry a bit about a kind of manic depressive habit in America. Makes progress harder, not easier.

applauding. thanks

Mums the word.

Mommybrain, you sum it up well. There is nothing of the Pollyanna in your response. I’d call it healthy awareness and maturity.

PS Glenn when I first saw your title, I thought you were writing about my sister’s old band, No Decibels.

Morning, Glenn. Good post.

I think it’s much harder to get something done when you are constantly in a bad mood. And if you’re in one, it’s a great idea to not rain on everyone’s parade.

Well said.

Great response!

Great band name!

Some folks just can’t be happy unless they’re in a bad mood.

Demoralization of the Left is the Right’s key strategy. They want us to feel hopeless, they want us mad at our leaders. We can’t give in to that. Those among us who are just not optimists should consider optimism and hope as tactical fronts in the war against oppression.

I agree, Mommybrain. On Friday morning when I arrived at the Lake I thought I had stumbled into RedState. Happy to see a few cooler heads around today.

I have known so many people who just can’t stand for others to be happy. Usually they have a way of guaranteeing it, too.

I once had a girlfriend like that. She taught me a valuable lesson though, better to be alone than with the wrong person.

rather childish on my part, but I happened to be stumbling my way to the coffee pot when the news was announced – so I do what I always do when the news is ‘good for lefties’ – switched to Fox. the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth so totally effing worth it

You’ll enjoy this:

White House Calls Fox News An Outlet For GOP Propaganda

It is funny, isn’t it? Listening to the clips of Beck’s and Limbaugh’s heads exploding was totally worth it!

thanks!

wish I could find real time video of what I saw – all that I’ve seen online are from after the Fox newsperson formally announced it. but before that, as the news was breaking, I watched them flop around on their sofas and whine like 4 year olds badly in need of a time out -priceless

Political journalists who suck the nuts’ helium to earn a float down Celebrity Boulevard have finally lost their tenuous tether to reality.

Great writing, thank you.

Hardly that. Even in my lifetime, the award to Arafat and Rabin was far more controversial and just as aspirational. While I agree that Obam’s accomplishments are a bit thin, he does have some. He has made bold, concrete moves toward reducing nuclear stockpiles, which show real promise. He has made significant advances in dealings with Iran. He has opened a dialogue with the Islamic world and has embraced multilateralism. Yes, these are first steps and far from completed, but they are something. It is completely true that the award was as much aspirational as based on accomplishment, but that has often been the case in the past, as with Arafat. It is intended to reward and encourage people who seem to be making steps in the direction of meaningful change. The other thing which is overlooked here is that the candidates on the ground are rather thin this year.

Any successor to George W. Bush was going to have a head start in a fraternity-of-nations contest.

So, that would include the McCain/Palin ticket?

In any event, not being a jackass is not a qualification for a Nobel prize of any type, as far as I can tell.

Um, the enemy is an unfettered war state, a state that regularly violates human rights, a state that violates its treaty obligations, and a state that hides from accountability through extreme interpretations of state secrets (not to mention blackmailing its allies).

Criticizing the award, because it is a de facto pat on the head for continuing those awful practices, is significant and appropriate. The enemy would be the Republicans, if the Republicans were the only group engaging in those terrible things, but they’re not.

Why does it seem like there’s this compulsion to defend the indefensible simply because it’s being attacked by the incomprehensible? There are a thousand ways to describe how inappropriate this award is, and provide the nuance to fully support the claim, but this is the most succinct way I’ve seen…

A War President, who shows no significant signs of disarming –militarily (offense spending) or politically (war powers)– simply should not receive a prize for waging Peace. It’s absurd. That the establishment right-wing talking-heads criticize it for ostensibly stupid reasons is not a cause to retreat from criticizing it vehemently for the right ones.

We haven’t yet achieved world peace. That means all the laureates — 96 individuals and 20 organizations — were either unaccomplished or simple failures, at least by the lights of Obama’s critics.

Piffle. Or should I say, absurd reductio ad absurdum. Any accomplishment toward peace – a treaty, getting warring parties to talk to each other, informing us about a threat to peace, would seem like an important contribution. Not one of the critics I’ve read, nor my own criticism, comes close to making an assertion such as yours.

Giving the award to someone who has started talks on nuclear disarmament might seem like a stride toward world peace, but it’s been done before. At the same time, that same individual has done nothing to stop two conflicts his own country is involved in, neither of which seems to have a point or a goal at this point.

Back to one original point in the article:

If ever we needed the news media to pull the cigars and helium tubes from their mouths and return to the streets with us, now is the time. An idle hope, I fear.

The media has been way off base, (typical of today and NOT of yesteryear) reaching for controversy and skipping the simple pride that should come when a sitting president (and our country by proxy) gets an award, a blue ribbon, a pat on the back.

No extensive analysis is needed. This the Nobel Committee. They are beholding to no one. It is what makes them special.

However, when we need the media to drill down, to ask the tough follow up, we get very little. Glen, if this is your main point I agree.

I think we need to get the media a little less profitable and a little more investigative. Funding solutions are obvious and abundant. How do we get people to focus on this fundamental structural problem in our public discourse.