Obama's Nobel

Stunning. Astonishing. Appalling. Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize.

For doing what?

Apparently, just for not being George Bush. Because he hasn't accomplished squat.

Times of London commentator Michael Binyon excoriates the Nobel committee:

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.

Indeed.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party and all too many liberal bloggers who ought to know better are accusing conservative critics of the award of being aligned with the Taleban. From Politico:

A top Democratic National Committee official reacted furiously to a statement from Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele mocking -- and describing as "unfortunate" -- President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize.

"The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize," DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO. "Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize - an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride - unless of course you are the Republican Party. 

"The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It's no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore - it's an embarrassing label to claim," Woodhouse said.

What incredibly fatuous nonsense.

On this issue, Glenn Greenwald provides some much needed common sense from the left:

Remember how, during the Bush years, the GOP would disgustingly try to equate liberals with Terrorists by pointing out that they happened to have the same view on a particular matter (The Left opposes the war in Iraq, just like Al Qaeda and Hezbollah do! or bin Laden's criticisms of Bush sound just like Michael Moore's! ).  It looks like the Democratic Party has learned and adopted that tactic perfectly ("'The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize,' DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO"; Republicans are "put[ting] politics above patriotism," he added). 

Apparently, according to the DNC, if you criticize this Prize, then you're an unpatriotic America-hater -- just like the Terrorists, because they're also criticizing the award.  Karl Rove should be proud.  Maybe the DNC should also send out Joe Lieberman's 2005 warning that "in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril."  Hamas also thinks that Israeli settlements should be frozen -- a position Obama shares.  So, by the DNC's Rovian reasoning, doesn't this mean that Obama "has thrown in his lot with the terrorists"?

Comments

[Matthew Bilinsky]

Stunning. Astonishing. Inappropriate. Fatuous. Puzzling. Condescending.

Yes, the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama is all of these things.

One thing it is not is "appalling".

Barack Obama has not experienced foreign policy successes anywhere close to warranting this award. He has, however, re-established American diplomatic ties and our standing in the world.

If you think that an organization vastly over-compensating him for this is "appalling", you are letting your partisanship overcome your sensibility.

[Mike Myers]

He has re-established diplomatic ties with our enemies--and severed them with our friends.

I'll go with "appalling" Mr. Bilinsky--with all due respect to your opinion.

[tammy swofford]

The recipient of the award is undeserving and lacks the character to decline it. Now if the committee had offered the "Legend in his own Eyes" award, we would all be cheering wildly.

As it is, a Chicago community activist, junior Senator, inexperienced statesman, and unproven POTUS has received the award.

Tammy Swofford

[Matthew Bilinsky]

"Severed them with our friends"????? Such as whom? (And no, putting an ounce of pressure on Israel to stop the spread of settlement activity does not qualify).

I hate to go back to Bush, but he basically told every one of our allies to go eff themselves and I sincerely doubt you would make similar accusations.