9 ms·
Barack Obama gets Nobel's Peace Prize
U.S. President Barack Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009. The motivation mentions "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". Congratulations.
- jacquesm 17y ago"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons." I'm happy for him, and I'm glad to be rid of Bush too, but isn't that a little premature ? Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and Gorbachev made sense at the time, but plenty of these nobel prizes seem to be very politically motivated and not because of actual achievement. For instance, Al Gore won the prize, as did Yassar Arafat.
- romanm 17y agoHard to believe, the guy didn't do nothing yet , he has no achievements just successful talk show appearance, I am afraid that the fact he is pushing U.S. to the edge had a big weight in that decision.
- gaius 17y agoHe has done some things, for example http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6262938/Barack-Obama-cancels-meeting-with-Dalai-Lama-to-keep-China-happy.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/b...
- bilbo0s 17y agoMLK gets imprisoned, shot at, fire bombed and beaten. Encourages millions to stand with him at non violent civil disobedience actions. Millions do so DESPITE the fact that they will be imprisoned and beaten. Nelson Mandela . . . yeah . . . ditto. Oh, did I mention 27 years in a notorious prison for 'enemies of the state'. Gorbachev. OK, when was the last time American school children practiced what to do in case of nuclear attack? Anyone remember 'civil defense fallout shelters'? I didn't think so. Obama . . . WTF?!?!?! Diplomacy between peoples . . . WTF!?!?! Did Israel and Iran give up their nukes and I missed it? Did the Palestinians stop slaughtering Israelis and vice-versa? Alright, alright, those are too much. How about something simpler? Can I go to Cuba, drink rum, and lay on a beach just because, without having a US government Customs Agent detain me on my return? No? Didn't think so. This Obama Love-fest is sickening. Even Gandhi is blushing at this one.
- borism 17y ago> Did the Palestinians stop slaughtering Israelis and vice-versa? AFAIK, yes - Israel completely obliterated Palestine during Christmas bombing.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- mcd 17y agoJust a few comments (this whole thread is contrary to YCNews policies). > Nelson Mandela . . . yeah . . . ditto. Oh, did I mention 27 years in a notorious prison for 'enemies of the state'. Nelson Mandela was convicted of trying to overthrow the state by armed means and sabotage. It was not due to non-violent protests and even if the cause was right, armed insurrection is never right. And if he succeeded in overthrowing the state it would have been a mess at that time. Mandela was the head of Umkhonto we Sizwe (the armed wing of the ANC). While he does not bear personal responsibility (since he was in prison) Umkhonto we Sizwe did quite a few despicable things during the struggle. Also, Robben Island (where Mandela spent the majority of his time) isn’t that notorious. Many prisoners of the struggle era were kept there and many of them obtained degrees while in prison (from UNISA). I would much rather be incarcerated in Robben Island than today’s Pollsmoor prison. Whatever the argument, he still deserved a prize (as did FW de Klerk) for the negotiated settlement that brought about the first multi-racial elections.
- kyro 17y agoI'd like someone to inform me of one accomplishment of his that warrants his receiving of the award. And pushing a catchy a slogan of 'change,' to get elected, isn't one of them.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- jeromec 17y agoThe predominant sentiment here seems to be Obama is a bad guy. I'm not saying he deserves the peace prize, but he didn't ask for it, nor, I'm sure, do anything he has done in pursuit of it. He didn't "push a catchy slogan of change" to get elected, at least, not the way you portray it. He adopted his "change" mantra from his earliest days as a politician, actually as a community group organizer. He sympathized with the disconnect he saw with poverty stricken blacks in Chicago contrasted with the wealth, indifference, and apparent self-interest of high level American politics. That's why he has repeatedly reminded fellow politicians of a duty to actually serve the people, and done things like put limits on staff salaries. The "change" message was coincidentally on time, and took on new meaning in light of Bush's performance, but not something he cooked up at the last minute. Edit: for those voting me down would you please delineate which of my points you disagree with? I'm genuinely curious.
- ananthrk 17y ago"The predominant sentiment here seems to be Obama is a bad guy" You got this wrong. Most of them are only questioning the thought-process of the nobel committee (in awarding the prize to Obama) and not of Obama, the person.
- billswift 17y agoThere's a sickening amount of Obama-love on this thread.
- kyl 17y agoDoes this count? http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aiiuAu6pX_Cw http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aiiu...
- ajju 17y agoPres. Obama pushed for diplomacy with enemies when it was politically risky for him. I think this was both right and courageous. But they should have waited till his diplomatic efforts bore some fruit to give him a Nobel. Awarding it now shows remarkable lack of faith in him AND diplomacy. Way to jump the shark, Nobel peace prize committee!
- lionhearted 17y agoWas it really politically risky? Everyone I know didn't like the Bush administration foreign policy. The only places he'd alienate by his policy were places that were going against anyways, but he picked up a lot of swing voters who care about America's international reputation.
- ajju 17y agoSaying "We should seek everyone's support in the iraq war" is not politically risky but saying "We should talk with Iran no matter what" really is risky in the US.
- kevbin 17y agoThey jumped the shark when they gave the prize to a boastfully-amoral purveyor of warmongering realpolitik in 1973, an unrepentant terrorist in 1994, an ineffective cronyist international kleptocrat in 2001, a self-aggrandizing bigoted apologist for dictators in 2002, and a scientifically-illiterate shill in 2007. Jumping the shark is what they do. I'm not sure its a club the President wants to join, at least not this early in a first term.
- tomjen2 17y agoHe didn't deserve that - he haven't even closed gitmo yet.
- mingdingo 17y agoIt does seem awfully fast, but for what it's worth: 1) He banned torture (waterboarding) 2) He wants to close Guantanamo. I know he hasn't done it yet, but it can't be easy. 3) He's willing to negotiate with Iran without pre-conditions 4) He's actually trying to push for a Middle East peace deal, and is being vocal about settlements 5) He wants a world without nukes. 6) He didn't put the missile shield near Russia, significantly calming things down over there. Probably some other stuff too. Is he like Nelson Mandela or Gandhi? Absolutely not. But considering how leaders of Superpowers have behaved in the past, he is unique.
- lionhearted 17y agoSaid differently: Wants: To close a nasty illegal prison, but hasn't yet. Talked to some people. Wants less nukes in the world. Didn't build a defense system. Did: Re-banned torture, in accordance with international law. Result: Nobel peace prize.
- mingdingo 17y agoYou have to remember, it's a big deal for the leader of a Superpower. In a vacuum, these things don't sound so great. In today's world, they actually are. Obviously there's something wrong with that, but that's just the way it is.
- lionhearted 17y ago> You have to remember, it's a big deal for the leader of a Superpower. Dude, Bush invaded two countries for no particular good reason. Clinton jumped into the middle of a backwards country's tribal civil war to draw attention away from his personal life. Obama can't close a fucking prison? Seriously.
- tsally 17y agoGandhi died before he was awarded the Peace Prize, even though he was nominated five times. Obama gets it less than a year into his Presidency? I like Obama, but that's just wrong.
- jhancock 17y agoObama seems to be a good man with good intent. Awarding him the Peace prize without a clear representation for a big problem he has helped solve does seem out of place. Al Gore didn't actually solve a problem either. Well, unless you count inventing the Internet ;). The only interpretation I can offer is the Nobel committee wants to show its support for Obama. The 2010 elections are going to be the worst circus we've seen in a long time.
- jacquesm 17y agoYep. It should be a prize for achievement, not for intentions. The Nobel Prize has just devalued considerably.
- ugh 17y agoNobel Peace Prize. No reason to drag the other Nobels into that.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- jacquesm 17y agoBy tainting the Nobel Peace Prize the others get devalued as well, it is one institution. So, I really did mean the Nobel Prize as such and I'm really sorry they did that. From the wikipedia article on the Nobel Prize: "The interval between the accomplishment of the achievement being recognized and the awarding of the Nobel Prize for it varies from discipline to discipline. The prizes in Literature are typically awarded to recognize a cumulative lifetime body of work rather than a single achievement. In this case the notion of "lag" does not directly apply. The prizes in Peace, on the other hand, are often awarded within a few years of the events they recognize. For instance, Kofi Annan was awarded the 2001 Peace Prize just four years after becoming the Secretary-General of the United Nations." So, maybe this is a case of prescience or something ? I really think this was dreadfully misguided and that it devalues the whole of the Nobel Prize, of course there is absolutely no way they could ever do anything about it now but the Nobel Prize is now synonymous with 'has the potential to do great things, some day. We hope.'
- davidw 17y agoNot really hacker news in any case. It looks like politics and current events.
- roundsquare 17y agoA bunch of the nobel prize winners have been posted here over the past few days. True, this one is more politically charged, but it seems to fit within that trend.
- davidw 17y agoYou can bet that the other threads had no mention of Glen Beck.
- roundsquare 17y agoFair enough, I'm defending the posting, not the comments.
- davidw 17y agoAny mention of Obama or Bush or Ron Paul or whoever, is pretty much bound to devolve into controversy of a more or less unenlightening and, all too often, unenlightened nature.
- rykov 17y agoNobel Committee could not resist after seeing all of this accomplishments: http://www.hulu.com/watch/99945/saturday-night-live-obama-address http://www.hulu.com/watch/99945/saturday-night-live-obama-ad...
- romanm 17y agoI am watching Glenn Beck show on Fox News every evening, he revealed that Obama has inserted a bunch of Marxist into the white house, fellows that admires Hugo Chavez , Lenin , Che and other nice dictators that are responsible for most of the blood in last century.
- davidw 17y agoThis sort of commentary is why we avoid politics here.
- kyro 17y agoBut Glenn Beck is an emotionally driven and controversial talking-head hacker!
- romanm 17y agoHi David, I wasn't the first to start this thread but once it was started I am adding comments that are relative to the context.
- tsally 17y agoNo one here is going to defend Glen Beck, so at best it would just be a one-sided conversation congratulating ourselves for realizing how irrational he is. This doesn't seem like a productive use of anyone's time.
- 17y ago
- pavlov 17y agoCongratulations Americans. Above all, this award is a recognition that the United States still stands for something unique. (It's hard to imagine the Peace Prize going to any other major political leader currently in office. Hu Jintao? Dmitry Medvedev? José Manuel Barroso? Nah.)
- marze 17y agoThe committee is probably thinking Obama will now need to live up to the prize--if is isn't a real peacemaking dude from here out, people will certainly whine.
- AndrewDucker 17y agoSo, basically he gets an award for not being George Bush?
- brazzy 17y agoSpot on. I wish we lived in a world where he could openly acknowledge this: "I want to thank first and foremost my predecessor, George W. Bush, without whose service as a stark contrast, I could not have won this prize (nor, perhaps, the presidency)"
- teilo 17y agoWhat contrast? Other than the fact that Obama doesn't snuggle up with the religious right, I don't see any significant difference between these two guys. A lot of perceived differences, sure. A D instead of an R, yeah. But judging by their far-reaching policy decisions, say, on war, personal freedom, privacy rights, transparency - not so much.
- gaius 17y agoWorth noting that ol' Dubya was the only POTUS willing to appear publicly with the Dalai Lama, at the risk of offending China. Clinton didn't, tho' he did meet him, and Obama has refused to even meet him (see link on my other comment).
- mahmud 17y agoDalai Lama, the slave driver .. Google Tibetan history and see what sorts of "religious order" he wants to implement in Tibet. Chinese are an occupying force there, sure, but the Dalai Lama, if he was no the leader of Tibet, would absolutely deserve a coup and summary hanging. Earlier visitors to Tibet commented on the theocratic despotism. In 1895, an Englishman, Dr. A. L. Waddell, wrote that the populace was under the “intolerable tyranny of monks” and the devil superstitions they had fashioned to terrorize the people. In 1904 Perceval Landon described the Dalai Lama’s rule as “an engine of oppression.” At about that time, another English traveler, Captain W.F.T. O’Connor, observed that “the great landowners and the priests… exercise each in their own dominion a despotic power from which there is no appeal,” while the people are “oppressed by the most monstrous growth of monasticism and priest-craft.” Tibetan rulers “invented degrading legends and stimulated a spirit of superstition” among the common people. In 1937, another visitor, Spencer Chapman, wrote, “The Lamaist monk does not spend his time in ministering to the people or educating them. . . . The beggar beside the road is nothing to the monk. Knowledge is the jealously guarded prerogative of the monasteries and is used to increase their influence and wealth.”24 As much as we might wish otherwise, feudal theocratic Tibet was a far cry from the romanticized Shangri La so enthusiastically nurtured by Buddhism’s western proselytes. http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
- kqr2 17y agoApparently, there were a record number of nominations for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize: 172 people and 33 organizations. http://en.rian.ru/world/20090227/120342505.html http://en.rian.ru/world/20090227/120342505.html Unfortunately, the list of names won't be revealed for 50 years. Without the list, it's hard to compare everyone's accomplishments.
- kqr2 17y agoNit pick : Could the original poster or moderator fix the typo in the title? Price -> Prize
- kqr2 17y agoIn contrast, Arizona State University actually withheld giving Obama an honorary degree normally awarded to visiting speakers on the ground that his main achievements are yet to come: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6289816.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/...
- miked 17y agoObama spent years at the U of Chicago law school, a place that publishes by the pound. He didn't publish a single paper the entire time he was there. My guess is that's why they withheld the honorary degree.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- plinkplonk 17y agoMy theory - Republicans bribed the Nobel Prize Committee to award this to Obama. Cheap for an instant PR disaster.
- mseebach 17y agoOr the democrats did it, so Obama can hold a long rejection-speech, highlighing all the people more worthy of it than him for an instant PR success.
- lionhearted 17y agoNobel prize recipients are called beforehand and asked if they'll accept before being announced publicly. Actually, most major awards are these days, as it removes the, "Thanks but no thanks, your cause is bankrupt" responses which tend to be embarrassing.
- mseebach 17y agoYeah, that makes sense. Amazing then that nobody told him about how accepting that prize might constitute a pretty big case of hubris.
- hlizard 17y agoThe pro Obamas fellows doesn't understand that it always finishes the same way... the guys in uniform come to your home...
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- unalone 17y agoI was going to respond, then looked at your history and realized you were a troll. Good game. Shame on whoever upvoted you.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- known 17y agoI think Obama deserved Nobel Prize. Let us check his struggled Childhood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama#Early_life_and_career http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama#Early_life_and_career
- ajju 17y agoFrom the secretary of the peace prize committee: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ibu-kfROlVhexdt7vLCBR7KGa1gwD9B7CB282 http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ibu-kfROlV... _ Myth: The prize is awarded to recognize efforts for peace, human rights and democracy only after they have proven successful. More often, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments. Posted by AP 6 hours ago. Clearly they knew this would create controversy.
- tome 17y agoAlso: _ Myth: Candidates can be nominated until the last minute. The nomination deadline is eight months before the announcement, with a strictly enforced deadline of Feb. 1. Wow! So Obama was president for only 11 days before he was nominated.
- ananthrk 17y agoI was surprised (and pissed off) and wanted to check who the contenders were and this is what the website had to say: Proposals received for the award of a prize, and investigations and opinions concerning the award of a prize, may not be divulged. A prize-awarding body may, however, after due consideration in each individual case, permit access to material which formed the basis for the evaluation and decision concerning a prize, for purposes of research in intellectual history. Such permission may not, however, be granted until at least 50 years have elapsed after the date on which the decision in question was made.
- diablo_r 17y agoThere is a place for politics on HN after all
- armadilko 17y agoSome will say there is no place for politics on HN, on one hand it is right it is likely the technological site but on the other all the stuff we do has so much influence on the society that we can stay apolitical.
- _ck_ 17y agoWhile the discussion quality is high, does this really belong on HN?
- bitdiddle 17y agoI'm hopeful that this prize provides a needed boost to his efforts. Obama has made great progress in restoring America's role in the world. He has the opportunity to make great progress on world peace and this prize is a strong vote of confidence in those efforts. Well done! I'll be curious to see where he donates the money, though he's not a wealthy man financially, he might want to keep some of it.
- miked 17y agothough he's not a wealthy man financially Both his books have sold millions of copies. The Clintons are now worth well over $100 million, just from giving speeches. Al Gore left office worth about $2 million and is now worth over $100 million from a combination of his global warming book, movie, and speeches and various board directorships, including at Apple and at Kosla's VC fund. Obama will scrape by somehow.
- bitdiddle 17y agoI think it was one of the Adams who opined that men go into politics to either help their businesses or hurt the businesses of their competitors. Of course Obama's real wealth is in those two beautiful girls.
- johnnybgoode 17y ago> Of course Obama's real wealth is in those two beautiful girls. Oh dear, I'm afraid this sentence could be interpreted in many ways. :(
- helium 17y agoWell at least the prize didn't go to Twitter... He still has the power to start a major war against any country in the next few years. How ironic would this be then?
- johnohara 17y agoInsight into the man if he accepts it.
- mahmud 17y agoMy thought exactly. He should reject it. The two people who ever declined to accept the award where both socialist revolutionaries; Sartre and Le Duc Tho. He is not prepared to be in their league.
- aichcon 17y agoI don't think he should reject it. Rejecting it would be an insult and spur unnecessary controversy. He should accept it with grace and move on.
- stuaxo 17y agoIs this because he's not Bush? There are still wars going on that his country is involved in.
- justlearning 17y agoWhen I read the title, I thought it was a link bait, until I clicked. may be, the Nobel Prize association is under new 'management'? I thought the Nobel prize was given to accomplishments rather than ideas. I really like Obama, but isn't it bit too early?
- sandrogerbini 17y ago>> "isn't this a bit too early" I tend to agree. I really hope (for everyone's sake) that this does not lead to complacency.
- steve19 17y agoI was reading blog feeds and I thought I had come across a joke.
- thismat 17y agoI think this would hold more weight if he hadn't backed down from the missile defense program and instead pushed hard to set it up in key points around the world. What better way to encourage peace then to start building anti-nuke stations around the world to nullify that threat from all parties.
- jacquesm 17y agoThe operative word in there is 'nullify', anything over '0' is not acceptable, and just about everybody agrees that 100% kill rate isn't going to be achievable. So effectively this shield will do exactly nothing, the only thing it guarantees is that if there will be an attack it will be a lot more massive. Some thing during the cold war, the stockpiles were enormous, not because we needed the power to destroy the world several times over, but because launch facilities might be destroyed. Also, first strikes will be directed against the areas involved in the missile shield, because after that the rest is wide open. I see the whole missile defense shield as an attempt to revive the cold war because it's good for defense contractors, those guys made untold billions.
- thismat 17y agoIt seems we're talking in two different places about the same subject, haha. I do see your point, and it does seem logical. It definitely would be nice though to remove the threat of any nuclear attack from or against any nation for the foreseeable future. Though I guess a nuclear strike might be less devastating than years of war in the long run huh? What a chilling world we live in.
- jacquesm 17y agoTrue enough. But still, if I have to worry about terrorists and failed states that seems to somehow be more acceptable than to have two superpowers on hair trigger 24x7, where any stupid move or misinterpretation can lead to a huge disaster. There is a list somewhere of the number of 'close shaves', too long and too close to have any confidence that such a state could be maintained indefinitely. That was just a matter of time.
- sandrogerbini 17y agoI wonder if Obama was as surprised as I was.
- MaysonL 17y agoProbably, but he responded quite well. See Jim Fallows critique of his comments: http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/10/obamas_nobel_remarks_four_very.php http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/10/obamas_...
- lispm 17y agothat Gitmo is not yet closed is not Obama's fault. In the US almost nobody wants to take the prisoners. The whole thing is a total mess. What the Nobel price really means: Obama needs more support and less obstruction. The old elites don't give up just because one guy gets elected. The struggle against the military-industrial complex, the neocons, the conservative lunatics, etc. will be long. Plus the US is not prepared for deep structural reforms (like getting rid of the two party system, getting rid of commercialized prisons, getting rid of a fake economy, really reducing the military budget, etc.). It is a sign from the international community that his intentions are recognized as going in the right directions, now people need to work with him to get stuff done. Like the russians and the chinese leaders need to really reduce the nuclear arsenals. Other leaders need to understand how useless these weapons are today.
- silkodyssey 17y agoI agree with the general sentiments that the award is probably premature but I think the general nature of the award lends itself to situations such as these. An award has to be given out every year and the world does not produce ghandis at that rate so the people who have made profound achievements will have to share the award with those who've done less. This does diminish the achievements of the greats in a sense but that's just how the system works and the fact that we can't really point to anyone else who obviously deserved the award more than Obama suggests that he may have been the best choice after all.
- colanderman 17y agoThey could have taken Time's route and given it to me...
- RK 17y agoI was just in Europe for the past few weeks and many people asked me about Obama. It seems that in Europe they are still in the honeymoon phase, whereas in the US it's moved on to the fighting through policy phase. None of the Obama supporters I know in the US still have that post election glow because the debates over health care and such are raging so hard. Europe isn't really touched by that so the honeymoon seems to be lasting longer. I was very surprised that he got this award right now, but knowing how many of the Europeans seem to still feel, I was less surprised.
- nir 17y agoThe Nobel Peace Prize committee have done the world an important service today, by reminding us how meaningless and fickle most awards are, no matter how much prestige they are supposed to carry.
- sandrogerbini 17y agoObama, Imma let you finish, but Kissinger was the worst pick of all time! A great review of the prize committee's choice @ http://technopolis.blogspot.com/ http://technopolis.blogspot.com/
- johnnybgoode 17y agoHere is the issue. The US government has tremendous power over world affairs. Norwegian politicians don't typically have much of a say in the decisions of the US government. But the Nobel Peace Prize is a way for them to have some influence, so they use it for this purpose.
- sampladoc 17y agoObama got the prize for the simple fact that he is not bush. His doctrine is one of engagement and diplomacy. The people in Oslo clearly stated that they meant for the prize to make his doctrine permeate the status quo. I agree that it's a bit too early for him to get it but the prize was clearly political.