That's what it boils down to.

Which speaks volumes for how many Europe came to view Bush and the relief which welcomed his replacement.

Of course the joke is actually on Obama since, in his short time as president, he hasn't yet really achieved anything solid yet.

And, in the general scheme of things what does it count for?

People will be queuing up to point this out whilst his enemies will be rubbing their hands with glee at the oppotunity to both stick the boot into Obama and have a go at a bunch of limp wristed, pinko liberals from Norway.

Yes, Obama is now also up there with people such as Yasser Arafat, (1994 joint winner with Shimon Peres & Yikzhak Rabin) , and Henry Kissinger (a 1973 joint winner with Le Duc Tho from North Vietnam. At least Le Duc Tho had the honesty to decline the prize).

It is just about possible, but very very unlikely, that had McCain won, then he might also have received it had he said vaguely comforting things about the "war on terror", the middle east, Iraq, Afghanistan and the relationship with Russia and China etc, but more likely McCain would have been considered only after he had actually secured something tangible. After all Jimmy Carter got it in 2002, but for work he'd done since being president.

Whilst I have always viewed the nobel peace prize as being deeply ironic, both from the point of view of some of the past receipients and also because Nobel's other claim to fame and fortune, being a world leader in the manufacture of explosives, a quick trawl through past winners does show that it's intentions are generally honurable.

The bottom line is that by giving the prize to Obama then at least it might be remembered who the 2009 winner was for a bit longer than some of the others. Anybody care to say who won it last year or in, say, 2006 without the aid of the internet?

(Took me a while to remember that Al Gore was awarded it in 2007.)

— 2009: U.S. President Barack Obama

— 2008: Martti Ahtisaari

— 2007: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Al Gore

— 2006: Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank

— 2005: International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei

— 2004: Wangari Maathai

— 2003: Shirin Ebadi

— 2002: Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter

— 2001: United Nations, Kofi Annan

— 2000: Kim Dae-jung

— 1999: Medecins Sans Frontieres

— 1998: John Hume, David Trimble

— 1997: International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Jody Williams

— 1996: Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, Jose Ramos-Horta

— 1995: Joseph Rotblat, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs

— 1994: Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin

— 1993: Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk

— 1992: Rigoberta Menchu Tum

— 1991: Aung San Suu Kyi

— 1990: Mikhail Gorbachev

— 1989: The 14th Dalai Lama

— 1988: U.N. Peacekeeping Forces

— 1987: Oscar Arias Sanchez

— 1986: Elie Wiesel

— 1985: International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War

— 1984: Desmond Tutu

— 1983: Lech Walesa

— 1982: Alva Myrdal, Alfonso Garcia Robles

— 1981: Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees

— 1980: Adolfo Perez Esquivel

probablly lived in ignorant bliss.

I congratulate you on an quick and efficienct cut & paste job.

But do you have any idea, without referring to google just who most of them are and why they got the prize?

Cos I haven't.

So which is it? Is the Nobel Peace Prize an insignificant award passed out to just about anybody and therefore no big deal that Obama won the prize?

Or is it an outrage that someone like Obama should receive such a prestigious award for doing nothing?

Its an outrage that an empty suit like Obama won it for doing nothing. Hopefully this whips the right into even more of a frenzy and the attacks on him will remain relentless. I want what Clinton endured to look like Club Med. Obama has to go- one term

More raging Republican impotence. Who you going to run against Obama in 2012? Glenn Beck? Rush Limbaugh? Sarah Palin?

The truth of the matter is that the Republican party has become virtualized. The political branch of the Republican party can't compete with the entertainment branch. It is much more lucrative to get on the radio and bitch about them liberals than it is to run against them for office.

Your willingness to throw money at the entertainers is destroying your party.

bill sullivan:

Hopefully this whips the right into even more of a frenzy and the attacks on him will remain relentless.

In this I think you will be satisfied - EVERYTHING whips the right into an even-greater frenzy.

But on balance, the Nobel Peace Prize will help tamp it down rather than the opposite. They call it "conventional wisdom" for a reason, and it's damn hard to buck.

It makes no difference what the man does or gets or says. It's that you're all so easily whipped up by a Beck or Limbaugh. Limbaugh just said it on TV, he does it for the ratings and the money. And he said "money" exactly the same way Homer Simpson says "donut". He knows you're all as stupid and easily manipulated as he needs you to be. How smart can one be if he's okay with being a "dittohead".

And we repubs get to read the same tired retorts from the Obamanuts too... Fox, Beck, Limbaugh, and "dittohead". Care to admit your writer?

While you hang from Obama's dick and dare not question why he got an award or try to evaluate what would qualify him to recieve said award....you simply blame the opposition for not being able to come up with our own opinion unless its given to us by the above list. Do you have a better argument than to attack the messenger? What did Obama do?

From Wikipedia: According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

What did Obama do? Don't confuse talking with action....ie...reducing nuclear weapon stockpiles. Bush isn't and never will be a candidate...nuff said, but what puts Obama on par with say, Lech Walesa?

you'd know I believe that some of the nominees may have accomplished more than Obama, but I certainly think his striving for "fraternity between nations" is evident to most, you guys just call it "ass-kissing" and "apologizing for being American." and those are direct parroting of the entertainment boys you mentioned. I don't need a "writer" to think for me. Wasn't that Rush's claim on his show. You don't have to think because he'll do it for you?

But boy oh boy, do several of you fraysters on the right have an obsession about the President's "package"! You play right into the stereotype of the white man's penis envy, or in Gatewood's case, bunghole envy.

According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

See the bold portion of the text. There's no requirement that Obama reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles, put an end to global conflict, or solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Has the inflammatory rhetoric been dialed down globally. Yes. Is the world somewhat more tolerant of the global hegemon? Yes. Is there greater emphasis on a multilateral approach to solving global problems. Yes. So has Obama done things that technically qualify him for the Nobel Peace Prize. Yes. Should he have received it? Maybe. I personally find it somewhat premature, but I'll trust that the Norwegians know what they are doing, after all they've been granting the prize for over 100 years. If you still have questions, it's a reading comprehension problem.

TR_Populist

I expect old Alfred had a little more in mind than empty rhetoric.

Thus my initial comment and one which I stand by; Obama has talked (mostly with the help of the indispensible teleprompter) about a lot of stuff and done precious little. If his rhetoric during the campaign is anything like a "leading indicator" then his actions after the election should be a "lagging indicator". What do we learn? He speaks loudly and smoothly but carries a tiny twig when it comes to action and follow-up. He flits around from one issue to another (failure to focus should not be mistaken for multi-tasking), never staying longer than it takes for a few well-rehearsed comments and a photo op and then he is off.

His talk is great but that is just fluff. To date there has been no evidence of substance. I will be impressed when I witness him rolling up his sleeves and getting his skin in the game.

He has disappointed just about every one of his followers; he has pissed off and congealed the opposition and the independents. Dems know that at this (early) stage of the 2010 elections they are in deep s#!% and they keep looking at BO to pull their chestnuts out of the fire. Come next fall, they will be slipping away from him as Pelosi sidestepped old Harry earlier this week.

That all being said and knowing full well that the Peace Prize has been awarded to idiots with absolutely no pedigree for such an award in the past, I still think BO has no standing to be awarded the prize, at least when compared to other much more deserving candidates.

The prize has become a political award as witnessed by the award going to Gore. He’s done nothing before or after the award to garner the prize. Nevertheless, we can sputter all we like, but the award isn’t ours to give, only to mumble our discontent.

That's what "demsrock" seemed to be saying in another thread. Many libs seem to think that's a fine reason.

My crystal ball tells me bill sullivan's wife might wanna sleep at her mother's house on November 6, 2012.

Penis envy?....really? That's how you substantiate Obama's award for potentially doing something to earn him a Nobel Peace Prize? I'm sure you had that on your report cards as a child didn't you....filled with potential, but you didn't get an A for potential. I have no fucking idea what Rush says unless jackasses like you post it here on the Fray....so that dog don't hunt. "Fraternity between nations".....my ass, it's as much bullshit as thinking "provide for the general welfare" means to establish a nanny-state.