I am voting Present.
UPDATE
A friend of mine observed:
The nomination period closed on February 1, for this year's award. Senator Obama became President Obama on January 20, 2009.Then, there is this from a woman working in DC with experience in the area of international affairs, commenting in an EMail just before 11:00 AM:
Just an observation.
Yes, indeed... After my initial bewilderment, I also came to the conclusion that it has to do with utilizing political influence.Regards — Cliff
But I don't see it as an attempt to constrain U.S. action. (Obama's emphasis on coalition building is not an innovation. It was after all under Bush that DOD began to emphasize building partnership capacity.)
Rather, I see it as an amazing endorsement of, even a plea for, U.S. leadership under Obama. If I were Obama, I'd cast my acceptance speech around the extraordinary challenge that this prize represents for him personally, for the United States, and for our allies and partners around the world.... I'll be interested in seeing what he says...
5 comments:
A friend observed the prize nomination date was within 3 weeks of his inauguration, and I think it's pretty safe to say that the SNL skit from last weekend, about Barack not actually DOING anything could pretty much be re-purposed and re-used this weekend about this. However, I hardly think this reflects at all on our president, the way all the rightie pundits will be frothing at the mouth, as opposed to pointing out that the Nobel committees are quite often completely clueless.
I think that Kad has this by the correct end. This is a reflection on the Committee and not on the President.
Regards — Cliff
I have to respectfully disagree with both of you - the fact the President has done nothing to deserve the award has to reflect on him also. I did not expect him to accomplish much of his ambitions in the first two years of his term b/c of Congress (which is another story of buffoonery) but for him to receive this incredible honor in recognition of his "attempts at reconciliation" (blah, blah, blah) is troubling.
The president would have immediately boosted his popularity both here and abroad by respectfully declining the honor. His failure to do this only provides ammunition to his opponents (domestic and abroad) and creates substantial obstacles in his path to truly accomplishing the administration's foreign policy objectives.
I suspect the award is a reflection of how the world sees us under this administration, really a 180 degree reversal of the past several years. The fact that Obama got the people of the US to endorse him to lead this change may be the reason why the nomination came so soon after his inauguration, as it was more based on the change precipitated by his election. That perception has probably been reinforced by his speech in Egypt and the decision to not go through with the European portion of the missile defense shield.
However, as Obama has said himself, the award is really a call for more concrete action, and that will be a tough row to hoe.
Re the comment from Joe S, Law Professor Ann Althouse put up a comment on Friday that may well support your view. She links to this blog, with this comment in the New York Times, from Ibrahim Assem, a man-on-the-street in Cairo, interviewed by The New York Times: "They are handing him the Nobel Peace Prize because he isn’t George Bush."
While I may not agree, I do understand.
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment