I say "yes" with the qualification that it wasn't really all that warranted.

A common misconception about the Nobel (Peace) Prize is that it's simply given out for what people have already done. But the prize is also given out to draw attention to global issues, peace initiatives or environmental dilemmas (etc.). And Obama is currently waist-deep in that stuff.

I think that this is more of a challenge to Obama and his presidency--than it is a simple award to Obama--to try to do more to steer the world towards a better path. The United States President has the most weight of any world leader in sociopolitical arenas and people look to the US President(s) to help shape the world. And what better burden is there than having to shoulder the promise of a Nobel Peace Prize?

No... He hasn't earned it yet.

But he won the prize because the people who think he deseved it believe in his potential. He has the drive and the ability to bring peace to a lot of the countries now in turmoil.

Fox news said that he won the Nobel on the basis that he's "not Bush." Well he isn't. His emobodyment of everything anti-Bush sent an imidiate calming over the earth. The simple act of him being our president was proof of hope to those inside and outside of the US.

i think yes. Most of the world loves america now other than when we had bush and office. Also who else would get it? Glen Beck said it should go and give it to the protesters (i belive they started the no peace, if we invaded a country and stared attacking them, why would our country get award in peace, thats what they are doing.)

He is a very modest man, if i won the Nobel Prize i'd probably be pretty modest also.

I can appreciate you positive spin on it. At least now some countries may like us after Obama had to keep apologizing that we are mongers as a nation.

What??? Ronald Reagan DID NOT tear down the Berlin Wall! Gorbachev did. Reagan was just one of many leaders around the world who WANTED that wall torn down. We, as Americans, like to think WE solve all the worlds freakin problems. If you go to any other country... ANY ONE, the citizens will tell you that THERE country is the most powerful, influential country on earth. I wouldnt be suprised if people thought Gunter Schabowski is responsibe for the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Although, I don't think he really deserved to win the Nobel Peace prize, its difficult to find any other candidates who deserve it more. Its true he is still the commander of forces engaged in war but I think, like another poster mentioned, that he has to most potential to make peace in the world. Another, strong point in his favor is the celebrations and rejoicing of the whole world after his election.

Like most people, I was surprised by the Nobel award.

Then I recalled that the Nobel Peace Prize is often given in recognition of efforts, not accomplishments, and that the Nobel Committee often favors individuals who symbolically stand in place of a larger cause and larger group (e.g., Desmond Tutu on behalf of those who fought against apartheid).

In that sense, the conservative pundits are right to a point in saying that Obama got the award for not being GW Bush. What they have left out of that analysis is that it is perfectly normal and justifiable for the Nobel Committee to award the prize as an endorsement or a spur-to-momentum for a particular political cause or position.

Meaning, in other words, that the international community and the Nobel Commission in particular thinks that the recent shift in American politics is such a momentous change in favor of peace when compared to the policies of the former administration that America -- or at least, American liberals -- deserve a Nobel Peace Prize in acknowledgement of this shift.

(Which says what, precisely, about how conservative American politics are perceived by the larger global community? Hmmm . . . nothing very favorable, I'd venture.)

Rachel Maddow gives perhaps the best analysis of the award that I've seen yet, and explains more eloquently than I could, so I have included a link to her video clip -- which I feel is very much worth watching in order to put the award into an appropriate context.

Mmmmm okay. I suppose that is true. He is moving America in a good direction, as far as foreign affairs go. And he is very much trying to be a diplomat. So I guess the award wasn't totally unearned. It just kind of throws one off, though, when someone who hasn't been president for very long gets such an award. I still say whether or not he deserved it remains to be seen; if he continues in a direction of peace, then yes, he deserved the award.

Anyone would say they don't deserve it moron! Well in my personal opinion he did deserve it. Anyway it isn't up to you, and im glad :)

True. But now that we've cleared that up, don't you think Gorbachev would deserve the Nobel Prize more than Reagan? Gorbachev is the one who made the ultimate decision. He's the one that took all the crap from opposing countries for his decision.

But Reagan and his diplomacy with Gorbachev they had a great relationship and he was hugely influential with the tear down.

Your examples are not relevant to this context. Sporting events are competitions with defined winners. Diplomas are awarded for credits earned by completing course requirements. Paychecks are collected for hours worked at a series of given tasks. But world peace is a process. It's not like all it takes to achieve world peace is the right team, or the right training, or the right number of manpower hours -- because creating peace is not really an issue of talent, training, might, or manpower. It's an issue of inspiring large groups of people to dedicate their continued efforts to peace. If you are waiting for world peace to break out because of the acts of a single individual before you award anybody the Nobel Peace Prize, you are going to be waiting a very long time.

So of course it's appropriate to award the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of efforts.

What you said about Gore was untrue. If you think Gore consumes more energy than Nebraska, back it up. Then well talk.

He does deserve it.

Why would he not?

He IS trying to help the world and

the United States.

Just because he hasn't put a huge

amount into law yet doesn't mean a thing

If you read correctly, they said he won

for his efforts! so yes!

in order for him to really deserve this prize, I'm pretty sure he has to actually ACHIEVE peace first.

Actually, no. Madden points out how often the award is given in recognition of effort rather than accomplishment. Aung San Suu Kyi has not toppled the Burmese military junta; she got the prize for her efforts. Desmond Tutu didn't end apartheid, which was still going strong when he got the prize; he got it for efforts. Carter didn't create a lasting peace in the Middle East; he got the prize for efforts. And so forth.

:)

Okay, that's true. I just don't know that his efforts are significant enough. I'm sure he WILL make significant efforts for peace; and I really like Obama foreign affairs-wise. But I think the prize shouldn't have been given prematurely.

OF COURSE HE DOES!.......................................................

It wasn't because Obama deserve the award, it was Who can we pretend to give the prize winnings to? They don't have any money to be giving away at this time, you know?

well like i said i dont agree with you and i am glad you dont decide.

He didn't deserve it, he said he didn't deserve it, and you don't deserve it either, so I'd expect you to tell the truth and say you don't deserve it as well.

Well than yes so Gorbachev did all of that and tore down the so called wall of hate and he never got the Nobel Prize and should have since Obama got one, maybe because the Nobel prize people are biased towards capitalist like Gorbachev is.

Why can't everyone in the world just be like you?

it'd be a better place.

Thanks for the support :D

You're still giving specious examples here, man. Even the historic "messiah" would not qualify for a Nobel Peace Prize given your criteria of enacting or perfecting a process for enacting peace. That's because (1) there is no "perfect" peace process, and therefore (2) that's not what the Nobel is given for, and ergo (3) the award wasn't given for what Obama had done with the first 11 days of his office. It was given in recognition of the election of an American leader commited to withdrawal from West Asia, to unilateral nuclear disarmament, and to international cooperation. That doesn't make him a "messiah," just a competent president.

And since the U.S. hasn't had anybody competent in the big chair for the last several years, yeah, it actually is globally significant that one of the world's major superpowers is no longer under the direction of a coke-addled egomaniacal warmonger. ;)

http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/books/pb2/pb2_table_of_contents

Ugh.

I downvoted you without responding because your post was nothing more than a more detailed repost of your previous statment. It was as if you hadnt read my post at all.

You are wrong, and I am correcting you.

................................................................

The Grand Old Spending Party

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa543.pdf

-----

Presidents and the Federal Debt

http://zfacts.com/p/480.html

-----

"Obama Is Spending More Than All the Other Presidents" Debunked

http://www.crotchshotradio.com/2009/06/obama-is-spending-more-than-all-other.html

I by no means mean to belittle a heroic holocaust survivor, and I don't know the details of what he may have gone through, but given the same situation any decent person would save children. That's a given. It's not a global act or lifelong dedication to peace.

Gore works to save all of humanity, and all of the planet.

Who he is and his intentions have already inspired peace and hope.

Lableing the Nobel Peace Prize as a joke is a very childish reaction.

What about the case that they nominated him to watch him and if he deserved it they would award him? No one thinks of that situation. He deserved the award more than anyone else in the world.