Comments on: So what does Obama do for an encore? Tracking U.S. politics Wed, 16 Nov 2016 03:39:51 +0000 hourly 1 By: Gad Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:52:17 +0000 “He got rid of the Bush Administration and that is enough in my book for him to get the Nobel Prize.”

Yes, he sure did.

Well, that and the fact Bush couldn’t run for a third consecutive turn anyway.


By: Jim Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:37:23 +0000 He got rid of the Bush Administration and that is enough in my book for him to get the Nobel Prize.

By: Moose Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:49:42 +0000 Whoever nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize just nominated the post of president.

What I mean is the Nobel Peace Prize went to whoever replaced Bush, it didn’t matter that it happened to be Obama.

By: Mark Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:26:46 +0000 Meteoric rises are often followed by devastating and equally rapid crashes. Obama certainly bests his predecessor at “speechifying” but to this point is the least substantial political figure of all time (though he has time to remedy that). Hope must be built on substance, not just on hope itself. This reward could be more trouble than it is worth for the president.

By: Hmmm Mon, 12 Oct 2009 03:46:13 +0000 So what does Obama do for an encore?

Gee. How about EARNING the prize he was just awarded? Or did he earn it already simply by being Obama?

By: -D Mon, 12 Oct 2009 02:27:16 +0000 I am curious how a prize like that can be awarded without no initial action having already to take place to back it up as such an honor?

Also, we are still at war and its a peace prize in which he is the president who is currently the one who is in charge of this war, although he did not start them. Still, how can a “peace” prize be awarded to someone as a leader in one side of the war?

Would this mean that people no longer have to actually put forth the effort to act upon an idea but to simply present an idea and become rewarded?

By: Lim Boon Chuan Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:38:07 +0000 I hope that Obama treat this award as a beginning of a long journey. It is a award for starting in the right direction and is not given because of the accomplishments that he had made. The initiatives are there but they need to be followed up and substantiated as well as solidified. IMO, the award comes too soon. Hopefully Obama will be able to really justify that he deserves this award maybe by the end of his term.

By: Tony Hayden Sun, 11 Oct 2009 13:44:47 +0000 I love how the media has recently been bashing President Obama for “all his failed promises”, then turn around in the very next news segment and complain that he has been in office only nine short months and doesn’t deserve this award.

By: Anon Sat, 10 Oct 2009 15:33:39 +0000 After reading the many posts on this and similar forums, I have noticed something.

All the (minority) posts supporting Obama’s getting this award either:

1. Don’t address the fact that he did NOTHING to deserve getting the award, or

2. Admit he didn’t actually do anything to deserve it, but think he should get the award anyway. For making people feel nice.

Is it just me, or are they missing the point? Does the nobel peace prize mean so little to them, that they believe Obama should get it for nothing?

Morgan Tsvangirai should get this award. He stood against Robert Mugabe. He inspired his people to vote, even under threat of torture or government sanctioned starvation. He was arrested in the middle of the election, and showed a beaten face to the media when he walked out of Mugabe’s police headquarters.

ANY of the other 200 or so dominated people should have got the award. Each of them has REAL things they did for others. REAL sacrifices made towards peace.

But now the nobel prize has been debased, and reduced to nothing but a meaningless symbol of populism. And Obama’s supporters, ever ready to worship their political messiah, don’t see a single thing wrong with doing so.

Obama has made history. And it is a sad day when a good speech writing gets an award, while true peace workers are ignored.

But then again, good speech writers are the ones who end up as popular over-worshipped presidents, don’t they?

By: William Douglas Horden Sat, 10 Oct 2009 07:53:12 +0000 The President of the United States is a symbol, not just to those of us who live here but to the rest of the world. There can be no doubt that President Bush came to symbolize a kind of “might makes right” world view that caused other nations to feel less secure and less part of the international policy-making scene.

President Obama has made all the right symbolic moves to reassure other nations that they are respected and have a voice in determining the future of the world we will leave to our great-grandchildren. The Nobel Peace prize is a symbol as well–a symbol of hope and the highest aspirations of civilization.

Symbols are essential in changing hearts and minds. They open up new possibilities for what can be created instead of destroyed. They don’t replace action or achievements but, rather, pave the way for them.

Let us join in the Nobel Committee’s symbolic gesture of goodwill and hope.

Let us view the world as one in which all cultures are created equal.

Let us wish for peace and prospering for all.

Let us become again a symbol of justice and compassion.