Obama Wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

[Drake Tungsten]

As for concrete accomplishments, at the very least he defeated Hillary and prevented her from being the 'anyone not a Republican' choice on the ballot.

Hillary was vastly preferable to Obama.

[Patroklos]

First black president of the US was a big thing outside the US. It had/has a lot to do with the world's reaction to him.

So when are the primary slaver state of the last few centuries going to have a black president?

[notyoueither]

As for concrete accomplishments, at the very least he defeated Hillary and prevented her from being the 'anyone not a Republican' choice on the ballot.

Hillary was vastly preferable to Obama.

That's saying something, coming from you. You really have a hate on for this guy.

So when are the primary slaver state of the last few centuries going to have a black president?

It didn't look good on UR whenever he tried this sort of misdirection. You don't wear it any better.

[Theben]

That it happened a week after that great SNL skit didn't help matters any.

CNN has that angle covered.

[KrazyHorse]

As for concrete accomplishments, at the very least he defeated Hillary and prevented her from being the 'anyone not a Republican' choice on the ballot.

Hillary was vastly preferable to Obama.

Not even close.

[Guynemer]

Are they still egg based? I have an egg allergy.

Yes, but there are different kinds of egg allergies. You may or may not have a reaction to the vaccine. I'd call your allergist (if you have one).

[Drake Tungsten]

You really have a hate on for this guy.

Of course I do. He's an empty suit and a bad president.

Not even close.

I thank god you can't vote here...

[DaShi]

Why do you all hate America?

October 9, 2009, 8:29 pm

Weekend Opinionator: Does the Nobel Hate America?
By Tobin Harshaw
As we all know, Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” Swell sentiments, but it seems unlikely that anyone will ever apply them to Brad Woodhouse, the communications director of the Democratic National Committee, who had this to say yesterday:

The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists — the Taliban and Hamas this morning — in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize. Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize — an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride — unless of course you are the Republican Party. The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It’s no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore – it’s an embarrassing label to claim.

Democrats say that being critical of Obama’s prize is siding with the Taliban. So who are the real patriots?
Ahhh, takes one back to the debates over (and since) the invasion of Iraq in 2003, with conservatives accusing those who were against an invasion of Iraq of “siding with Saddam.” At the time, liberal critics found such guilt by association pretty despicable. So, dear readers, if you’ve had enough of the debates over whether Obama deserved the prize and whether he should have refused it and whether the Nobel committee has lost its collective mind, let’s look at the broader idea of whether criticizing the president on life-or-death issues like terrorism does indeed amount to sleeping with the enemy.

Chris Harris of Media Matters lays out the details behind Woodhouse’s statement:

As news broke this morning that President Barack Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the president’s adversaries quickly spoke out against the decision.

The Taliban, with which America is in the midst of an eight year war, condemned the award, saying:

We have seen no change in his strategy for peace. He has done nothing for peace in Afghanistan. He has not taken a single step for peace in Afghanistan or to make this country stable… We condemn the award of the Noble Peace Prize for Obama. We condemn the institute’s awarding him the peace prize. We condemn this year’s peace prize as unjust.

A few hours later, the Republican National Committee released the following statement:

The real question Americans are asking is, “What has President Obama actually accomplished?” It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights. One thing is certain - President Obama won’t be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action.


That the domestic political opposition party would echo the sentiments of one of our nation’s fiercest enemies is truly striking. The global community honoring the American President with one of the world’s top awards should be a cause for national celebration, not cheap political games.

One could expect this reaction from our nation’s enemies, but it is unseemly and downright unpatriotic coming from American political leaders.

Just in case those examples weren’t enough, Media Matters put together this sampler of what it sees as a conservative “hissy fit”:



“The video really does highlight how far to the right the dominant conservative media figures have drifted,” adds Greg Sargent of the Plum Line. “For them, any pride one might take in the sight of an American president winning the Nobel is immediately outweighed by two factors. First, the international prestige Obama gains from the Nobel might help him succeed at realizing his agenda. And second, the Nobel shows that the rest of the world seems to like us again.”

Writing at the Democratic Strategist, J.P. Green is pleased as punch that “this is likely to drive wing-nuts over the edge, or at least the few who haven’t succumbed to Obama derangement syndrome already.” After pointing out that the prize has been won by “Republicans and conservatives like … F.W. De Klerk,” the former leader of apartheid-era South Africa, he says that the “political strategy implications of Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize should be considerable”:

It gives him added leverage in foreign affairs. It puts his critics in regrettable harmony with leaders of terrorist groups like Islamic Jihad, one of whom said in the afore-linked NYT article that Obama’s selection “shows these prizes are political, not governed by the principles of credibility, values and morals.”

It’s hard to say how much the Nobel selection will help in terms of Obama’s domestic agenda, but it can’t hurt and it certainly adds lustre to photo-ops with the President, who already enjoyed a substantial margin of approval over congressional Democrats and even more so over Republicans. Who knows, it just may encourage a Republican or two to think about building a legacy a little bigger than that of being a toady for the health care industry.

Steve Benen at Washington Monthly thinks that even if the D.N.C. charges are overheated, they are a good counter to the Republican efforts to tarnish the president with his victory:

The Republican strategy here makes a certain degree of strategic sense. The president was just honored with one of the world’s most prestigious accolades, and the GOP has an interest in undermining any potential benefits the White House might receive as a result. But coming on the heels of last week’s delight over the U.S. losing the Olympics, Republicans have set themselves up as the party that roots against the country, and this morning, echoes the rhetoric of the Taliban.

Steele & Co. are making things easy for the DNC, and the party isn’t going to waste the opportunity.

For the GOP, this isn’t even tricky: try giving graciousness a try. The public will respect you for it.

As for the official Republican rejoinder to Woodhouse, here is Gail Gitcho of the R.N.C.:

Like most Americans, the DNC can’t think of one achievement that the president has accomplished, so they resort to their predictable response and standard playbook of demonizing those who disagree with them. First they call Americans concerned over health care ‘rabid extremists’ and ‘angry mobs.’ Now, when challenged to answer the question of what the president has accomplished, Democrats are lashing out calling Republicans terrorists. That type of political rhetoric is shameful.”

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has a less formal reply:


DNC: If you laugh at Obama’s Nobel, you side with terrorists …

Oh, and the Taliban too … George Bush got a lot of heat when he used the “you’re with us or against us” for the war on terror, but he specifically meant nations that had to decide whether to help us fight terrorist networks or choose to hide them or hinder justice …

Even in a political environment where the two major parties send out ridiculous ding-dong reactions to events, this takes the cake. Woodhouse argues (almost assuredly uncomprehendingly) for a fuehrerprinzip where the head of state must never be questioned or criticized, lest one become a traitor to the fatherhomeland. Will Woodhouse also start labeling late-night comedians like Jay Leno and Conan O’Brien terrorist sympathizers for their (very) occasional ridicule of His Reverence? Does Janet Napolitano plan to open a file on Saturday Night Live for last week’s prescient dig?

Clearly, the DNC needs a smarter class of public-relations flacks. Given this evidence, it should not be difficult at all to find them.

Dana Loesch finds the D.N.C.’s Olympics’ point equally puzzling: “So wait – questioning whether or not Chicago ( which is $200 million in the red, does money not matter to the left? …You can’t pay for things with MAGIC) can support and pay for an Olympics is bad and asking what Barack Obama accomplished in the twelve days he was president, twelve days on which his nomination is based, is ‘terrorism?’ Are people actually employing this argument with a straight face?”

Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard thinks that the Democrats are not just offensive, but are slipping up in their semantics:

Leaving aside the fact that any criticism of Barack Obama now makes you a terrorist according to Barack Obama’s DNC, it’s interesting that the DNC is calling the Taliban “terrorists.” All the reporting on the current White House deliberations over “AfPak policy” would seem to indicate that this president doesn’t necessarily consider the Taliban a terrorist organization anymore. The administration wants negotiations with the Taliban, they’re even prepared to let the Taliban join an Afghan government. The Washington Post reports:

“Some inside the White House have cited Hezbollah, the armed Lebanese political movement, as an example of what the Taliban could become. Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government, but the group has political support within Lebanon and participates, sometimes through intimidation, in the political process.

Some White House advisers have noted that although Hezbollah is a source of regional instability, it is not a threat to the United States. The senior administration official said the Hezbollah example has not been cited specifically to President Obama and has been raised only informally outside the Situation Room meetings.

“People who study Islamist movements have made the connection,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.”

It’s not Republicans that are throwing their lot in with terrorists — it’s the White House.

Same for Mark Steyn of the Corner, only snarkier:

Jonah, as one of those “right-wing domestic terrorists” laughing his head off at Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, I was shocked at how badly off-message the DNC’s Communications Director has wandered:

“The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize,” DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO.

Didn’t he get the memo? “Barack Obama: Taleban Can Be Involved In Afghanistan’s Future.”

Who is this Brad Woodhouse to compare America’s new partners for peace to Republican terrorists? With this one tasteless remark, he risks damaging Obama’s “extraordinary efforts” at “cooperation between peoples” that the Nobel committee rightly recognized.

Up next! More Nobel-friendly peace initiatives:

“Barack Obama: Putin Can Be Involved In Poland’s Future.”

“Barack Obama: Iranian Nuclear Program Can Be Involved In Israel’s Future.”

It’s not only conservatives who find this line of attack offensive — David Sirota of Huffington Post argues that his feeling that the award was premature doesn’t make him a Taliban sympathizer:

I hope we should be able to agree on is the idea that we can disagree on this without being called right-wing sympathizers or worse, terrorists. I know that’s hard for some hard-core Democrats and Democratic-affiliated radio talk show hosts to understand - these people are trained/paid to simply say that everything good for Obama is good, and everything else is bad. They are people who, when a Democrat holds the White House, scoff at Teddy Roosevelt’s old adage that, “To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

But the truth of what I’m saying should be self-evident.

By that I mean, you can be a genuine progressive interested in peace and think this award is a travesty on progressive grounds, and also not think that the Rush Limbaugh/GOP attacks about this award from the right are valid at all. Likewise, you can think this award is a travesty and simultaneously hope that one day President Obama truly ends up building a record deserving of such an award. You can even think this award is a travesty and think Obama is on the way to building up such a record, but is undeserving of the award because he’s only been president for 9 months and hasn’t yet proven himself a Nobel-level peacemaker.

So the fact that the Democratic National Committee is calling everyone who opposes the Nobel committee’s decision a terrorist is, in a word, disgusting. I know the DNC is responding to Republicans (whose basis for opposing the Nobel prize to Obama I disagree with), but by saying all critics of the Nobel award and of Obama’s record (or lack thereof) are terrorists by virtue of their opposition is just sick and wrong.

A sensible argument, although it seems unclear whether he thinks Woodhouse’s smear is accurate in reference to the objecting Republicans.

Debate over patriotism (and its alter-ego, nationalism) need not, of course, devolve into name-calling. Consider Henry Fairlie, a Fleet Street scribe who moved to Washington in the mid-1960s and, while a true Tory, was quite displeased with American conservatism. In the Reagan era, he picked a fight with Irving Kristol, the neoconservative beacon who died last month, about Kristol’s claim that “patriotism springs from love of the nation’s past, nationalism arises out of hope for the nation’s future, distinctive greatness.”

Fairlie felt that Kristol had it exactly backward. “Patriotism does not spring from ‘love of the nation’s past’ … Patriotism is rooted in the present. But nationalism does spring from a desire to recreate the nation’s past and make it live … Oh! the mists of the past, without which nationalism has no life. Patriotism is satisfied to defend the nation now. Nationalism drags in the nation’s past to make it speak sense; and that sense, being false, is always destructive. The American conservative is always confusing nationalism and patriotism in this way.”

We are born and raised to believe that dissent is, or at least can be, patriotic. Over the last six years, liberals and conservatives have each accused the other of breaking that link in the social contract. And in the vortex of this week’s Nobel debate, the lines between patriotism, anti-Americanism, dissent and nationalism have blurred into triviality — Irving Kristol’s neoconservativism has mutated into some meaningless form of postmodernism. Obama’s Nobel will soon be yesterday’s news, but the argument over what it means to love America will be alive and well.

Seriously, who cares? If it makes him do a better job, great. If not, then if his opponents are right, he can't do worse.

[Drake Tungsten]

tldr

[DaShi]

You'd like it. It might help you with your problem.

[Guynemer]

You'd like it. It might help you with your problem.

How would reading that help Drake get rid of his horrible case of KrazyHorse **** Breath?

[Drake Tungsten]

KH is a dumb**** who thinks Obama is better than Hillary.

[Guynemer]

Clearly, that's "dumb****".

The autocensor gets both "****" and "****" with no problem.

However, while it gets compound formations of "****"--such as "mother****er" and "****ity **** **** ****"--it routinely fails to get compound formations of "****": "horse****", "bat****", and, of couse, "dumb****".

[The Mad Monk]

Yes, but there are different kinds of egg allergies. You may or may not have a reaction to the vaccine. I'd call your allergist (if you have one).

Oh, there's no question about a reaction. It was a running gag in my family that I'd always get a bad case of the flu after getting the flu vaccine.

Turns out it wasn't the flu. I can eat 'em, but God Forbid I inject 'em.

[Winston]

Clearly, that's "dumb****".

The autocensor gets both "****" and "****" with no problem.

However, while it gets compound formations of "****"--such as "mother****er" and "****ity **** **** ****"--it routinely fails to get compound formations of "****": "horse****", "bat****", and, of couse, "dumb****".

* ****

Tsk, learn how to spell.