Well, there are so many people that can nominate candidates, so a few of them were probably star struck during his presidential campaign. And he is not W or more importantly he is not a Republican, that goes a long way. Hitler was nominated as late as 1939, so it does not really take much. Stalin has also been on the list.

He should use it to buy health coverage for the uninsured.

Here's an email I just got:

What a disgusting abominable piece of humanity. At least Bush knew he was scum.

A+. More of this please. For some reason I can't get enough.

thanks man I try

Does anyone else think this was a deep and brilliant (and hilarious) attempt by the prize committee to hamstring Obama in his upcoming decision to send more troops to Afghanistan? What, is he going to send 50k more troops to the 'stan one day (for world peace, ldo) and accept the prize the next? Brilliant!

^^^ Hmmm...

The standards for nominating someone are low. Hundreds of people are nominated every year.

Based on the political ties of 80% of the members on the committee I would find that highly surprising, as they belong to political parties that support the war in Afghanistan and have sent Norwegian soldiers to fight there.

Some of the Presidents achievements after nine months:

1. Lowered the temperature in global politics.

2. Noticable shift from unilateralism to more reliance on diplomacy and international organizations.

3. Guantanamo

4. Scrapping the missile shield

5. Timetable on withdrawal from Iraq

6. Initiative on nuclear disarmament

7. Pushing for action against global warming

8. Treating European NATO-allies as partners again

9. Reached out to the worlds muslims in the Cairo-speech

10. At last paid the US debt to UN and increased US funding for peacekeeping operations.

= USA is once again a leader the world look up to.

lol even better. They are so blinded by their man-crushes on Obama that they are unaware how their fawning and premature award will put Obama in a tough spot in expanding a war they all support.

But I thought that the European support for the Afghan war was very rapidly diminishing, so I'm not sold on Bedreviter's analysis. But I will readily admit ignorance to the state of support of the Afghan war among Norway's ruling class.

Youre right, nothing to do with Afghanistan.

All the European NATO-allies support the US in Afghanistan. Its a just war mandated by the UN and in accordance with international law.

(As in contrast to the war in Iraq.)

"And I will persecute them with the sword, with the famine, and with the pestilence, and will deliver them to be removed to all the kingdoms of the earth, to be a curse, and an astonishment, and an hissing, and a reproach, among all the nations whither I have driven them." -- Barack Obama

!

11. Extension of the patriot act

Well, you're a lot more likely to see protesters with "Stop the war NOW!!" and "Get out of Afghanistan"-signs than you are seeing people waving "20% increase in soldiers to Afghanistan NOW!!" or "I like how this is going, keep it up". The political left has always been more vocal and better at taking to the streets, so they make more noise and are more noticeable. But generally people tend to support the war in Afghanistan. And out of the major parties in Norway I think only Socialistic Left that got like 5-6% of the votes in the recent election are against the war itself, or want to withdraw Norwegian troops.

This. This forum is an echo chamber of the clueless. While I don't think Obama is deserving, he's done a lot for world harmony and has done a whole lot to begin rebuilding the from the ashes of Bush's foreign policy. Also, issues of race that have been dealt with for the last 50 years in the US are becoming more central in other parts of the world and Obama provides an excellent leader and example on that front.

Want to reiterate on the missile shield, which is just an insane idea that has done tons of harm to the US in terms of wasted money and damaged foreign relations.

lol, the hatred is so rich and juicy

...or maybe he just meant that as a lowly Congressman, RP's really not in a position to actually do anything.

If RP was elected president he probably would win.

1,2 & 8 are pretty much gimmies for a Democratic president following a Republican president anyways. A Democrat will be more in line with the rest of the world ideologically, so for this not happen would be a shocker. Obviously Obama has done his share, but not really a big accomplishment, as it is a 2 way street. You may remember the reactions in Norwegian media when Bush was elected at first, there were no signs that things would be easy, and that was before he had even taken office. And back then the main worry was that he would keep the US less involved in the world and promote isolationism (lol).

3. Still open, and they seem unclear about being able to keep their own deadline. Bush also wanted it closed, but he had the same problem as Obama is facing; what to do with those supposed terrorist that we don't want but can't set free either. But Obama's goodwill with other nation might help him ease the burden, and make other nations commit to deal with a few of the prisoners. But Guantanamo is not an accomplishment yet.

4. Yes. Definitely has helped easing tensions with Russia. For now at least.

5. Setting a timetable is one thing, coming through is another. And I am not sure what sounds better "Keeping them there until the job is done", or "We're leaving on this date, no matter what". It also remains to be seen what presence the US will have in Iraq after they "leave". I have heard people comment that the US will be guilty of "crimes against humanity" and will be breaking international law if they pull out of a mess they created before it has been solved. Anyways, actions count as accomplishments, not promises that we do not yet know the validity of.

6. I don't really know what this means. Obama does not think it will happen as long as he lives, and a lofty dream of peace and harmony is more likely to help you become Miss World than it is to be considered an accomplishment. And let's say that the world is free of nuclear weapons, won't that make the owner of the most powerful land sophisticated conventional weapons (the US) even more powerful? Take the nuclear threat away from North Korea and Iran, and they are helpless and the US are even mightier than they are now.

7. Bush also talked quite a bit about this. He did not commit to international treaties, but he talked about the importance of alternative source of energy. One of the first things Bush did after taking office was giving the middle finger to the Kyoto-agreement, something that made him highly criticized. He stated however that there was no way he could accept the terms, as they were not compatible with the needs of the US. Other nations did sign it and patted themselves on the back for their awesomeness, but just as Bush predicted; they realized that they would not comply with what they agreed to. I read something a few weeks ago about how Canada had increased their pollution by 20-30% since signing the Kyoto Protocol. People became a target for not signing something the actual signers did not comply with.

9. This is different than Bush how? He did that shortly after 9-11, and was even criticized for being to close with Saudi leaders (they are Muslims). Say what you want about Bush, but he consistently referred to Islam as a religion of peace, and stated that Muslims as a whole were far from enemies, just a few of the radicals were enemies.

10. Probably true, haven't heard anything about it.

We look up to them now? I see a lot of the same criticism now, even though people express a little more hope of the new leadership.

Lol @ Obama talking about nuclear disarmament as a justification for the prize. It's the thing he is least likely to achieve out of all of his promises.

How do you define doing something? He's been gaining traction w/r/t his views on the Fed, if nothing else. I don't know if you saw but his son also raised well over 1MM in a moneybomb for his Senate race. And even if he wasn't doing anything at all and was some random dude, he'd still be more worthy of the Nobel in my opinion than Obama.

All the innocent guys in Guantanamo who Obama's lawyers are preventing from receiving a trial have got to be super pissed about this. My advice for them is to get together, form a PAC, and start writing him some checks for his reelection campaign.

The sad thing is that this would actually work.

btw anyone that believes the government is going to voluntarily give up nuclear arms anytime before something crazy like the next major technological epoch is....naive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

it is game theoretically ridiculous to get rid of nukes unless you can prove everyone else has gotten rid of them too

In all seriousness the problem is not the nobel prize, the problem is the press that makes people think the nobel prize matters, why should I ****ing care what 5 fake douches think?