Obama and the Nobel Prize

United States
October 15, 2009 3:12pm CST
First off a disclaimer, I am not saying that Barack Obama was the best choice for the Nobel Peace Prize, as it is subjective and each nominee has merit. It was a shock that he won with only being in office for just over 9 months. One of the comments I've seen is that he was nominated before February 1 of this year. With that, how could they even presume he would be acceptable for the award? I decided to do some research on the Award, as they say it's not a Prize so much because it is not a contest or lottery, but the decision of many people. In September of the year communications are sent to people who should be in the know about what is going on in the individual fields that are awarded. These nominations need to be by February 1. During the months of February and March, they make a short list, like the 5 finalists in entertainment awards. From March to September the advisors review the choices. In early October the Award is chosen by a majority vote of the advisors, they are announced the same day they are chosen. Here is a web page that goes in to more detail of the process ... http://ow.ly/uE4I . They have from February until the end of September to look at and compare and finally make a choice as to who they feel is the right choice. The committee that chooses the Nobel Laurette is from Oslo Norway, partisan politics does not have any bearing on the choice. It seems to me that being as it is a foreign committee that has chosen Barack Obama, then he has already, in his first 9 months, made an impression on the world. They feel that his actions and policies already are making the world breathe better and feel safer. I'm proud that an American President won the award, and actually see some progress on the world stage, though I disagree with more domestic actions he has taken. As to those who bring up Carter and Gore winning Peace Prizes, remember back in 1973 when Henry Kissinger won the Award.
1 person likes this
3 responses
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
15 Oct 09
"As to those who bring up Carter and Gore winning Peace Prizes, remember back in 1973 when Henry Kissinger won the Award." You're using an award from 36 YEARS AGO as proof that it's not about partisan politics TODAY? Come on man. You must know how ridiculous that sounds. Heck I wasn't even alive back then. He won it because he bashed Bush incessantly. That's really all their is to it. Gore and Carter actually ACCOMPLISHED things, but I think it was the Bush bashing that put them over the top as well. If preaching hope and change was enough to win it than why didn't Clinton win it in 1993? You may have forgotten this, but that was his campaign shtick. Obama just stole it and pretended to come up with it.
3 people like this
• Mexico
16 Oct 09
Hi Taskr36: I don't agree with you. Obama really represents hopw. When Bush was head of state there was no dialogue just impositions: look Irak, nobody wants this invasion but he decided to do it with a false excuse
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
15 Oct 09
No, there own words is that they gave him the award in hopes of motivating him to do what they want.... in other words, it was a bribe.
2 people like this
• Mexico
16 Oct 09
Hi brothertuck: i can't agree more with your oppinion. I think they vote for Obama because we can notice that international relations of USA and the world are better now thanks to the election of B. Obama. i know he needs more experience in his office but he wasn't the bad choice the media wanted to say he was
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
16 Oct 09
If nobody wanted it then tell me why Congress, including democrats like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden all voted for it? The last president we had that went to war illegally against the vote of congress was Bill Clinton. Of course you'll never hear about that one.
1 person likes this