During the initial 24-hour news cycle following the announcement that the President of the United States had won the Nobel Peace Prize we heard all manner of demeaning, diminishing, and ridiculing of the President and the prize. Beltway pundits David Brooks and Ruth Marcus appearing on Jim Lehrer's News Hour both bashed President Obama and the Nobel prize as being unwarranted and insignificant. Brooks called it "a joke." On Democracy Now! I heard Naomi Klein say pretty much the same thing as the Beltway savants. A lot of commentators heaped praise on John McCain for being "gracious" because he didn't diss Obama for winning the prize. But what would you expect that grumpy old man to do? Spit bile all over it like the rest of his Republican colleagues?

The cynical and sordid response in America raises a few questions: Have we lost the ability as a nation to accept something good when it comes our way internationally? Have we become so traumatized by the belligerent Bush-Cheney-Bolton unilateral militarism of the previous eight years, with its attendant hatred for the world and its people, that we are incapable of recognizing the simple fact that it is much better for America to have a president who is admired and respected in the world than one who is despised and feared?

It wasn't long ago when Republicans and right-wingers across the country (the evolutionary predecessors of the Tea Baggers) were pouring out French wine into gutters and burning Dixie Chick CDs in protest of anyone who had the wisdom or forethought to try to warn us that invading Iraq, toppling its government, and militarily occupying the country without international support might not be a good idea. The Franco-phobia ran so deep that Republicans in Congress, led by Representative Bob Ney (who is now fittingly in prison), changed the name of "French Fries" in the House cafeteria to "Freedom Fries." Anyone not going along with the party line that invading Iraq was a vital national project had his or her patriotism questioned and was silenced in the mainstream media.

Fast forward to the 2008 Republican National Convention and we hear Rudy Giuliani demean and diminish Obama's experience as a "community organizer," which was one of the more memorable laugh lines from the gathering. And then from that point onward just about everything Obama has achieved has been met with withering sarcasm and ridicule. He sends Bill Clinton to free American prisoners in North Korea and it turns out to be a stunning success that offers a breakthrough in relations with that weird and dangerous nation and the media greet the news with a collective yawn. His efforts to win the 2016 Olympics are fruitless but provide hours of content for right-wing bloviators who ridicule and demean his effort. He wins the Nobel Peace Prize and these same gasbags trash the Nobel Prize and the President. David Brooks said on the News Hour that "nobody cares what five Norwegian guys" think.

What's missed in the deafening cacophony of right-wing noise and chatter is that Americans should use this Nobel Prize as yet another Obama-inspired "teaching moment" to come to terms with just how much George W. Bush's foreign policy scared the hell out of the rest of the world. And we should understand how the world is relieved Americans came to their senses and looks to us for global leadership.

To illustrate this point one only has to compare the media coverage of Bush's landing on the aircraft carrier the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln off the San Diego coast on May 1, 2003. Chris Matthews and the rest of the political media talking heads embarked on hours of breathless commentary about how regal and wonderful the spectacle was and how proud they all were to be Americans and blah, blah, blah. G. Gordon Liddy even spoke admiringly of the bulge in President Bush's codpiece. Masculine virility and macho militarism was fused with the national symbols of the flag and the military.

Europeans have seen this before. When we were engaged in our little rah-rah rally, the rest of the world was absolutely horrified. The biggest military power on Earth was acting belligerent and its president was indulging in bombastic nationalistic grandstanding. And this display was happening at the same time Baghdad was gearing up for a horrific sectarian bloodbath that everyone seemed to be able to see except for the Americans and their imperial president prancing in a flight suit and declaring "Mission Accomplished."

What Bush did was shift the posture of American foreign policy toward militarism and unilateralism, and he did so with a jingoistic right-wing Christian fundamentalist flair. President Obama, in less than ten months, has reset American foreign policy more toward multilateralism and a mature engagement with the world.

He has a long way to go and things might not work out. But at least he is moving in the right direction. The Nobel committee was just trying to give him a nudge. It's a symbolic prize. I don't understand the vitriol aimed at the President for winning it. But it is an international recognition that Obama is at least on the right track.

If the media would only cover Obama's peace prize win with half as much enthusiasm as they did Bush's landing on the aircraft carrier we might have made some measurable progress. We'll have to wait for Obama's next success and see what happens. Maybe all the demeaning and diminishing of Obama will grow old and tired, boring and repetitive, and then the media can move on to find something else to ridicule. But I won't hold my breath.


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a- ... 16385.html

We can certainly argue the merit of other nominees and call into question passed recipients but one has to admit (if you have left North America for any significant time within the last few years both pre and post Bush regime) that the overall feeling outside of of the United States is much more peaceful and positive when compared to the egotistical military first approach of the Bush-Cheny group.

If the media would only cover Obama's peace prize win with half as much enthusiasm as they did Bush's landing on the aircraft carrier we might have made some measurable progress.

I know that nothing I say will make a dent in the blanket "anti-Obama" views of some of you

I know that nothing I say will make a dent in the blanket "anti-Obama" views of some of you

If you honestly think that a change in how the world views America and improvements to our foreign policies hasn't had a quantifiable impact to world peace then like I said, leave America and talk to the other people on this planet.

”What got into the committee to award this prize to a man who has yet to live up to the high expectations? Were they drunk?”

”It’s clear that Obama has increasingly more difficulty meeting expectations. His inspiring words about peace and deproliferation have yet to be supported by any concrete results. What is meant to be a reward [for great achievements], could very well end up being tremendous burden for Obama.”

“To reward him for a blank results sheet, to inflate him when he has no achievements to his name, makes a mockery of what, let’s face it, is an already fairly discredited process (remember Rigoberta Menchu in 1992? Ha!).

“Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.”

“Which is what makes the awarding of this year’s prize to a president who has been in office for a mere nine months an odd departure. It is as if the prize committee had been persuaded to give the award on the future delivery of promises.”

“Let me be clear: the discourse on Islam in Cairo was beautiful, tall, and it opens up new horizons, but did not lead to anything. And on the other matter, as pointed out repeatedly in this blog, Obama has been evasive or inconclusive, starting with Iran and Afghanistan. Nor can he boast the merits of rapprochement with North Korea, which was brought about by Bill Clinton. He kept only one real promise: the gradual withdrawal from Iraq. Enough to deserve the Nobel Prize?”

“The Nobel Peace Prize has come too early for Barack Obama. The US president cannot point to any real diplomatic successes to date and there are few prospects of any to come.”

“Obama is being given his award for mere words — for striking fashionable poses in favour of multilateralism, for making a nice speech in Cairo, for offering “hope.” Months after Americans learned to dismiss Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign slogans as the meaningless bromides they were, Scandinavians are still drinking his Kool-aid.”

killing women and civilians? what?

I'm not anti-Obama, I'm anti just about every policy position he holds.

Then quantify it for me.

...and here's a sample of what the rest of the world thinks about the matter:
The Netherlands



The UK




Italy


Germany


Canada

^^^and most of those sources are left leaning news outlets like Der Spiegel.^^^
http://www.poligazette.com/2009/10/10/f ... e-victory/

And that's from the much friendlier part of the world...an Afghan leader was quoted as saying Obama should have been awarded the "Nobel prize for killing women and civilians"

Well of course when I said that the overall opinion of America in the eyes of the world has improved I meant every single person.

Considering such, I would say, yes, that we are the center of the world and are the origin of all that is right, and the rest of the world suffering from low self esteem is just too dam bad.

Wow...not much I can say to someone who thinks this way. This ethnocentric, ego based mind set has repercussions, but fuck it right? It's not your life out there on the line in Iraq or Afghanistan.
USA!!! USA!!! USA!!! USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!