From the AP: "President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision designed to build momentum behind his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism." (emphasis added).

In that context, awarding him the Nobel makes sense to me.

All I know is, Rich Limbaugh is going absolutely APESHIT over this...so it's worth it just from that standpoint!

Obama is driving Limbaugh NUTS!!!!!!!!!!

I AM GOING TO BE SICK!

Bomber of innocents, nukes threatener of Iran, coup meister of Honduras, torturer... Nobel Peace Prize?

I'm in a coma somewhere and this is a bad nightmare.

They might as well call it the Nobel Door Prize.

"in a stunning decision designed to build momentum behind his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism"

So disarm Israels Nuclear Program ,stop the saber rattling at Iran on Israels behalf ,enforce UN Resolution 242 against Israel ,stop Israeli colonies (settlements) spreading and stop the siege of Gaza.
Read the Goldstone Report.

Actually, 99, this is all a nightmare --- and when you come out of the coma you'll find that W. is still in office and that he won the Peace Prize!

Actually, Obama has W. to thank for this: after the Chimpenfurher, the only direction is up; and what good the Obama administration has accomplished so far has been little more than a cleaning up after the Reign of Madness. I get the impression the Nobel committee hopes to shame him into doing better.

I rather enjoyed Josh Marshall's initial take on this, which rings as true as any assessment I've seen. Here's the money quote:

Michael Moore says it well...

Glenn Greenwald's take....

[ed note: Fixed yer links for you. Write your text; highlight the part you want to turn into a link; click the link button; paste the link in the box that pops up, making sure you have not got two https there; and then post that. Bob is then your uncle, and the world can click your link and get where you wanted to send people. OR just paste the link whole into the comment box and the software turns it into a link automatically. --99]

Brad @ #8

That money quote is pure sophistry.

In the comments on your TPM link Brad, the best snarky comment ever about what should happen to the MSM collectively;

Ah yes, the "so-called liberal media," totally in the bag for their "boy," Obama. May they all be found dead in hotel rooms wearing multiple wet suits, with dildos up their butts.

Like the rest of the progressives that helped the guy get elected, I hope this toughens the guy up. He should take this as (yet another) batch of politcal capital to do the will of the overwhelming majority of Americans--instead of trying to negotiate with the idiotic Right, which he'll never win over.

And no hope he'd be honorable enough to refuse it either.

Henry Kissinger was also awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973. The Nebel committee has no credibility.

Isn't it interesting that the Peace Prize was the one prize Nobel had the rebellious breakaway Swedish province Norway give? All the other Nobel prizes are given out in Sweden. One of the purposes of the Peace Prize is to stir up trouble and this time is no exception. As the majority of the Peace Prize committee is appointed by the left Norway parties, maybe the committee knows things we don't.

There are two interesting things about the story, though. The first is that all these people think they have some business telling the committee what to do. They don't. Nobel left it up to these oddball Norwegians to give out and that's it. The second is that in any other country in the world, giving the Peace Prize to an active leader would be considered by the country's citizens as an honor to the country as a whole. Here, though, it's just an excuse for jealousy and petty politics. But them the purpose of the prize is to stir up trouble . . .

Info on who makes up the Peace Prize committee

http://nobelpeaceprize.o...ation_committee/members/

Made up of one man and four women. Two are moderate labor, one is definitely left wing, and two are conservatives. Norwegian “moderate labor” by American standards seems to be somewhere around Bernie Sanders and none of them are comparable to American Republicans.

Thorbjørn Jagland - Norwegian Labour Party – the leading partner in the “Red-Green” Coalition that runs Norway today.

Sissel Marie Rønbeck – Norwegian Labour Party

Ågot Valle - Socialist Left Party and the lady’s a redhead to boot – Symbol is a red S and a green V. They’re definitely socialist peaceniks by anybody’s standards

Then there are the two conservatives:

Kaci Kullmann Five – Conservative Party, Chamber of Commerce types, but the Norwegian conservatives are social liberals supporting gay adoption rights and marriage.

Inger-Marie Ytterhorn - Progress Party – a right wing libertarian party opposed to taxes.

[ed note: Sorry. This comment accidentally hit a secret spam blocker cue and so was delayed. --99]

Yer IQ will drop with this vid. Obama bans flavored dip, needs to be "inpeached".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCvkatCGNFY

Yes, well, Flo, much as we like to be appalled by the guy on that "fuckin' video", GROSSED OUT, he has a right to be pissed as hell... shouldn't lose sight of that.

From http://www.antiwar.com/b...ll-go-naked-to-stockholm

Most often folks mumbled resignedly “War is Peace.” I prefer the Vietnam era formulation that warring for peace is like fu**ing for virginity.

Whaaaat?

He hasn't earned it. Let's hope this moves him to do so.

Jon in Iowa at #5, Nobel Door Prize. Pretty damn good.

Maybe it was a symbolic gesture on how happy the world is that Bush is gone.

There are people all around the world who've devoted their lives at great risk to promote peace. In contrast, Barack Obama capitulates to destructive corporate interests. Awarding the peace prize to Barack Obama when there are so many people more worthy and deserving of it, is absurd. Why is it being handed to someone who, like the rest of the "Democratic" party, so easily bends to the will of death merchants and far-right extremist elements?

Methinks the committee is trying to shame the useless turd into actually following through on some (ANY) of his many, fine-sounding promises, Pass the snake oil...

There's no way Obama's accomplishments thus far deserve the Nobel prize (not that the prize is completely pure, but still.)

I think the committee is, as some have said, trying to motivate Obama to pursue more humanitarian policies in the future, particularly on Afghanistan and climate change, where big decisions are upcoming.

I think you all underestimate Obama. We shall see.

I hope #27 is right, but since the Democrats that many of us voted for came to power; we are looking at less transparency (FOIA on torture evidence), less justice (still nothing on the many crimes of the last administration), continuing possibly escalating 2 wars and a gift to the insurance companies in a bill that will force us to buy their hand in our pockets.

Seriously, both major parties appear to be in the back pockets of the major too big too fail corporations and banks. It 's time for a major push for conservatives to go Libertarian and progressives to go Green.

my first thought was that maybe they're making up for Chicago not getting the Olympics

Alan Grayson on Obama's Nobel:

http://www.youtube.com/w...;feature=player_embedded

Remembering Orwell's "War is Peace" is a perfectly appropriate reaction - hopefully not mumbled resignedly though (see Konstantin #20)!

Here's one from greenleft.org:

Obama has a chance to implement policies worthy of the prize he has been awarded. A president willing to reverse these policies — ending the occupation of Afghanistan, ending arms sales to Israel, ending aid to the Honduran regime, and closing US foreign military bases, combined with genuine nuclear disarmament — would be one truly worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize.

It was a surprise. The Nobel Committee likes to do that when they can. And my first reaction was dismay that this would energize the Foxery, Beckering, Limbaugians at just the moment when the White House had set in motion efforts to as the President put it, “take it to ‘em”.

What people are failing to see in this, and more broadly in the hyperbolic debates under way domestically is that, in a democracy elections are supposed to matter. They are supposed to bring about change. Winning an election that brings restorative change to our great republic is an accomplishment worthy of the world’s most prestigious honor.

The right-wing pundits, corporate talk-jobs, and religious nuts are falling all over themselves in a truly shameful effort to strip the president of the very legitimacy we the people conferred upon him when we the people elected him. If a group made up of the best, brightest, most accomplished intellects in the most lauded fields of human endeavor wish to bestow their acclaim upon his success acceding to the Presidency, and thereby setting a new direction for what is still the world’s largest military and economy, I am pleased to see it.

The president’s political foes will predictably get all tserudert, and make up crazy conspiracies, but it was disappointing to see the likes of Lech Walesa presume the prematurity of the award. He was himself awarded the Noble Peace Prize for his Solidarity campaign, not the undistinguished presidency that followed. It is far more disappointing to see both the White House and the legitimate media miss the boat as well.

This is a remarkably patriotic moment for America. It is a celebration of our democratic ethos, and more. For the span of a generation we truly were Reagan’s oft quoted, “[shining] city on a hill”. Not just because we won the war, but because that victory stood for liberty in defiance of tyranny. We were selfless in restoring our enemies and thereby transforming them into our closest allies. We promoted prosperity everywhere while our universities educated the world’s most meritorious minds. We have had a few misadventures, perhaps owing in the greatest measure and most fatefully to our absolute failure to heed Eisenhower’s warning about the rising influence of the “military-industrial [Congressional] complex”. Still, we stood guard against the advance of totalitarianism. Every bit as important as that is the fact that the United States more than any other imperial power since the late Roman Republic held ourselves, our friends, and those who would do us harm to The Rule of Law. That ended. All of it was put to a disgraceful end before noon on Sept. 11, 2001 when Vice President Cheney declared that there were, “no good targets in Afghanistan” turning his and our nation’s attentions to Iraq. When President Bush stood on top of the smoldering rubble and the bodies of the brave to shout thoughtless declarations into a bullhorn, a dark turn was taken. Not just our worthy pride, but moreover the worthy causes for that pride were buried by that man, in that place, beneath his feet.

I won’t recount the criminality that followed so closely on those horrific events, nor the theretofore unimaginable extent of those wrongs. They are too numerous, and all too familiar. But in this great American moment to celebrate the election of change take pride, and do so in the reconstitution of its causes. Because the day Barrack Hussein Obama took the Oath of Office was not the beginning of a campaign to bring change, and to redeem the world’s faith in America, it was the moment at which our nation’s course was righted, our best aims restored. On that day we threw off the brazen thuggery that had subsumed our proclivities at home, and abroad. On that day, with a sanguine world as our witness, we became Americans again. If they had gleefully tossed the medal around his neck at the first ball of the evening I would have applauded then as much as now, and assigned to it as much meaning as I do now. For that man to have attained the power of the Presidency by democratic means was our nation’s declaration of Solidarity with the world, for which tribute is now being given. In a democracy, elections are supposed to matter.

http://www.chicagonow.co...-for-not-being-bush.html

http://www.rgemonitor.co...y_suspicious_hedge_funds

http://techdailydose.nat...gs-for-googl.php#1361346

William H. Depperman has been leaving his version of War and Peace all over the internet. If you care to read his stuff, it is readily apparent in the comments sections of the links I replaced his "comments" with... and many more....

William, I doubt you'll be back to notice, but we don't post spam here.

I think that those Afghans and Pakistanis who were bombed would disagree with this. My condolences to the survivors who lost loved ones.

Eric (#32),

Elegantly eloquent though you are, I must disagree with this:

For that man to have attained the power of the Presidency by democratic means was our nation’s declaration of Solidarity with the world, for which tribute is now being given. In a democracy, elections are supposed to matter.

A Nobel Peace Prize for winning an election which overturned the ruling party that had produced the Worst President Ever? Come on, now. May as well give us all Peace Prizes for slightly braking our country's decline into total fascism.

If you ask me, and I know you didn't, he's sped it up.

And he's not braking troop deployments either.

99, I think we braked it a little bit with our vote. A McCain presidency and a Republican senate would have been a greased slide.

Lora & 99:
I can’t top “greased slide”. Point well made. But I am not among those who feel we as a nation are falling into some profound decline. The era of American preeminence in all things is ending. Our brief experiment with neo-conservative “American Exceptional-ism” is clearly over. But what remains is a damaged republic that is still a world leader on so many levels. Some the best evidence for this primus is right here on this blog as we continue to measure our government against our myths and ideals. The influential and well placed have an enormous advantage, yet Brad can still give them the kind of hell that makes a difference with nothing more than a laptop, a phone line, and a couple packs of American Indian's... And Desi of course.
I have faith and reasons for belief that my country will always be great. We are going to have to share the sand box in ways we have not for more than a generation, but that really is okay. We will in this process learn the difference between boastful pride and genuine esteem. And we will be the better for it.
~e.

this article from Reuters today:

The two Labour party members, former prime minister Thorbjoern Jagland and Sissel Marie Roenbeck, strongly supported Obama. “Jagland is known in Norway for liking dramatic gestures.”

“All members believed Obama had taken solid initiatives toward nuclear disarmament and reconciliation. . . . One of the newly elected members, Aagot Valle from the Socialist Left Party, had strong objections to giving the prize to Obama.

‘I had expected a debate, especially around the issues I find problematic, the war in Afghanistan,’ Valle told daily Bergens Tidende earlier this week.”

She has a point there.

http://www.reuters.com/a...ws/idUSTRE59E3M720091015

Surprisingly, no one has picked up on the real reason the Committee gave the prize to Obama. Jagland's initial comment:

"Some people say, and I understand it, isn't it premature? Too early? Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now.”

see, e.g. http://www.msnbc.msn.com.../ns/politics-white_house

"Too late to respond three years from now" means that the Peace Prize can only be given to someone during his or her lifetime. The prize was award posthumously only once — in 1961, to former U.N. Secretary-General Dag Hammerskjold, after he was killed in a plane crash in Africa. The rules were amended in 1974 to prohibit posthumous prizes.

In other words, said Jagland, better give Obama the prize now before he's assassinated. Cheerful Norwegians. Perhaps they know something we don't.