That said, I disagree with the assertion that he has done NOTHING to warrant winning the award. Anyone who caught Maddow last night can see why the Nobel Committee has some justification for giving him the Prize.

He’s scrapped plans for missile defense in Eastern Europe.

He’s speaking out strongly on the need to make this a non-nuclear world.

He’s approaching the issues we have with Iran with an olive branch of diplomacy rather than a seber-rattling indicating preparation for pre-emtpive war.

The criticisms are valid, though I would point out on GITMO that he hasn’t broken his promise yet. He told us that it would be closed within one year on January 22, 2009. There ar troubling signs indicating that deadline may pass with GITMO still open. If that happens, then he rightly deserves criticism for it… but we’re still three months away from the deadline. I’m not gonna blast him for breaking a promise in an area where he hasn’t broken a promise.

I also object to the claim that he has escalated war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, I believe that he has reduced the number of troops in Iraq, and the timelines he laid out this past Spring are being met. It is fair to criticize him for extending those timelines beyond the initial 16 month promise he made while campaigning.

We haven’t substantially escalated the war effort in Afghanistan… yet. There has been a small escalation, but the huge surge hasn’t happened… yet. Gen. McChrystal has requested an increase of 40,000-60,000 troops in the area, but thus far, Obama hasn’t given McChrystal what he has requested – something for which Obama is taking a huge amount of criticism from the right for. His indecision there is troubling insofar as he’s leaving the door open to troop escalation, but don’t criticize him for sending 40,000 more troops there when he hasn’t done that. My sincere hope is that he’s listening more to VP Biden than he is to Gen. McChrystal on this front. We’ll see what happens. If he gives in to McChrystal’s request and begins an Afghanistan surge effort, he rightly deserves every bit of criticism that will follow. And he does deserve to be criticized for allowing the status quo to continue in Afghanistan.

He also deserves criticism for failing to address the Bush torture programs. But he also deserves praise for ENDING those programs.

I agree that this award is at best, premature. I also think there were more deserving candidates. But I don’t get why anyone would criticize President Obama personally for winning an award that he himself doesn’t believe he deserved, nor did he ever lobby for it. From all indications, the White House was every bit as shocked by the news yesterday morning as was everyone else. If one feels that the award was unwarranted, the criticism should be directed towards the five Norwegians in Oslo who decided to give it to Obama, not towards the man who won it when he didn’t even ask for it.

FYI, a list of nominees that the Nobel committee thought deserved the prize less then Obama: - CTD
You can disagree with the choice without acting as though Obama’s name was pulled out of somebody’s ass. - Cara

I suspect a factor in their decision might have been Obama’s level of influence as a US President – in that anything he does, good or bad, is magnified on the world stage. The same might have applied to the award to Arafat (which was given jointly to Yitzak Rabin and Shimon Peres, something that both supporters and critics seem to be omitting at the moment) – due to their position at the political centre of a major world flashpoint.

Then again, while I can understand that as a factor – if it is – I don’t agree with it.

I merely observed that it was odd that as both Obama and the Dalai Lama have received the same peace prize, which was partially given in recognition for ‘efforts to strenghten international diplomacy’, that Obama felt unable to meet with the Dalai Lama in the same way that other presidents, such as Clinton and both Bush 1 and 2 met with him.

Tibet is a diplomatic issue, and the Dalai Lama is the international spokesman for the Tibetan people’s desire for more autonomy, so your comment that he is not a political figure is simply untrue. It actually sounds like something that would come from the Chinese Communist party, who dismiss any requests for greater autonomy as a product of the ‘Dalai Lama clique’, as though he is just a religious figure and doesn’t represent the political aspirations of Tibetan people.

Obama caving to China’s desire to have the Dalai Lama sidelined could have serious repercussions if the Tibetan people begin to lose faith in the Dalai Lama’s ability to bring attention to their situation, as they may resort to more ‘direct action’, with the possibility of violent confrontation.

clear message has been sent to China that Tibet is not really an issue to the US administration anymore.

It’s it just odd that someone who won a prize for ‘efforts to strengthen international diplomacy’ would cut another recipient out of the diplomatic loop.

My understanding is the opposite. He put off meeting with the Dalai Lama so that he’d still have some diplomatic ligitimacy in dealing with other nations in the meantime without appearing to have allied favorites among people with political power as opposed to having a nice photo opportunity with someone with only symbolic power. Like it or not, the Obama has to deal with both the Dalai Lama and China and prioritize his meetings. Sorry it’s not happening on your timeline. What’s your beef?

I just thought other people would be interested. Really, that’s the fully story. I found it interesting first thing this morning and was glad I read it. I posted it on Twitter and many other people there found it interesting enough to retweet. And as a result I thought the Feministe audience might find it interesting as well, though I realize now that I might have been wrong in that. I’m getting the impression that some readers are thinking that I have some kind of ulterior motive other than sharing that I’m attempting to be coy about, but … I don’t. I honestly don’t care enough to have an ulterior motive, though clearly I underestimated the extent to which other people do care, and I’m sorry for that.

There is at least one strong counter argument attached to each of those reasons and whether or not they were fully legitimate ones! Or that they should have outweighed the accomplishments of other nominees! I never said otherwise.

Well then, what’s left of your defense? That there have been worse recipients of this prize? Sure: but none of them were quite so idle, so un-achieving of anything except election victories. The Nate Silver list mentioned above doesn’t say anything factual either.

“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”

There’s nothing there about intentions. IMHO, Cara, you’ve been spun.

NPR reported that Obama and the Dalai Lama are slated to meet late this year or early next year.

Also, the cheque is in the mail.

The problem is that Obama broke a tradition of US presidents meeting the Dalai Lama when he came to Washington that lasted 20 odd years. Sure, they might meet sometime, but a clear message has been sent to China that Tibet is not really an issue to the US administration anymore.

It’s it just odd that someone who won a prize for ‘efforts to strengthen international diplomacy’ would cut another recipient out of the diplomatic loop.