"Does Pres. B. Obama deserve the Nobel Prize?"
Sure now that they are giving them away in every box of Cracker Jacks but if he had to do "ANYTHING" to get one then absolutely no since the application had to be into the committee within two weeks after he became President.

WHAT A HORRENDOUS JOKE the Nobel Committee has shown itself to be!

Does Obama deserve the Nobel Prize?  It all depends on how you look at it, but most people - friends and foe alike - were equally startled at the news.  Why?  Two reasons.  First, Obama has only been in office for nine months.  In that time, he hasn't had a chance to do much, let alone walk home with the Nobel Prize.  On the other hand, the committee was looking at Obama's style of leadership - which is multilateral and cooperative - and decided that the "Obama effect" had made a positive difference in the prospects for world peace.  It didn't hurt that Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, had invaded two countries (only one of whom had actually attacked us) and had aided and abetted military regimes in both Haiti and Venezuela.  Bush had caused a near-return of the Cold War with his insistence on new nuclear bases near the Russians and his violations of the ABM treaty.  It was the Bush administration that had decided to suspend constitutional rights, open up secret detention centers around the world and treat the Geneva Convention as "quaint" at Guantanamo.  

In that regard, Obama might well have gotten the Nobel Prize for simply not being Bush.

Which leads us to the second reason people were so surprised when Obama was given the award.  Often referred to, albeit mistakenly, as the "Nobel Peace Prize," the prize is really about advancements in the cause of peace.  But for most of us, the prize is really about great achievements - like finding new cures for old diseases or mapping the genome.  To get a Nobel Prize, you really have to do something remarkable.  That, at least, is the popular view of the prize.  Some might point out that Al Gore got the prize, for his work on global warming, which was not so much a new discovery as a major effort to lend the issue credibility and celebrity.  Lots of scientists knew more about global warming than Al Gore, but few of them had the name recognition of the former Vice President.

It was a big issue.  Gore championed it like nobody else.  It advanced the cause of peace.  

Has Obama done as much?  Again, it depends on how you keep score.  In terms of concrete victories and done-deal changes, I can't see it.  What I do see is a different direction and a lot of little things that spell a move toward a positive, proactive, collaborative, "bring us together" style of leadership.  If anything, the prize is more of an endorsement of a type of leadership.  Critics will say this is empty hero worship, but perhaps there's more to it than meets the eye.  Nobody questions it when the prize is given for inventions or discoveries, but what if you could give the prize for inventing, or reinventing, a leadership pattern that advances the cause of peace. 

If the President were an academic, and this leadership style we speak of were on paper, nobody would think twice of giving it an award, especially if it promised to change the world in a good way.  The President's difficulty is that he's not an academic, speaking theoretically.  He's a world leader, taking action on the world stage.  We want to focus on the bottom line, of whether Obama has achieved victory in this battle or that.  Has he found Osama bin Laden?  Has he solved the healthcare crisis in America?  What the Nobel Committee is looking at is the discovery, invention or reinvention of a style of leadership that isn't a guarantee of success as much as an advance toward the cause of peace.  If more leaders would do as Obama has already started to do, war might not be impossible, but it would definitely be less likely.  Leaders who aggressively seek peace - not through surrender or obliteration of their enemies but by pressing them to focus on achievable solutions - are the peacemakers.  

Maybe the Nobel Committee had high hopes that Obama best exemplified a working model for achieving peace.

Oct 20, 2009 -- 9:34PM, BillThinks4Himself wrote:

Does Obama deserve the Nobel Prize?  It all depends on how you look at it, but most people - friends and foe alike - were equally startled at the news.  Why?  Two reasons.  First, Obama has only been in office for nine months.  In that time, he hasn't had a chance to do much, let alone walk home with the Nobel Prize.  On the other hand, the committee was looking at Obama's style of leadership - which is multilateral and cooperative - and decided that the "Obama effect" had made a positive difference in the prospects for world peace.  It didn't hurt that Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, had invaded two countries (only one of whom had actually attacked us) and had aided and abetted military regimes in both Haiti and Venezuela.  Bush had caused a near-return of the Cold War with his insistence on new nuclear bases near the Russians and his violations of the ABM treaty.  It was the Bush administration that had decided to suspend constitutional rights, open up secret detention centers around the world and treat the Geneva Convention as "quaint" at Guantanamo.  

In that regard, Obama might well have gotten the Nobel Prize for simply not being Bush.

Which leads us to the second reason people were so surprised when Obama was given the award.  Often referred to, albeit mistakenly, as the "Nobel Peace Prize," the prize is really about advancements in the cause of peace.  But for most of us, the prize is really about great achievements - like finding new cures for old diseases or mapping the genome.  To get a Nobel Prize, you really have to do something remarkable.  That, at least, is the popular view of the prize.  Some might point out that Al Gore got the prize, for his work on global warming, which was not so much a new discovery as a major effort to lend the issue credibility and celebrity.  Lots of scientists knew more about global warming than Al Gore, but few of them had the name recognition of the former Vice President.

It was a big issue.  Gore championed it like nobody else.  It advanced the cause of peace.  

Has Obama done as much?  Again, it depends on how you keep score.  In terms of concrete victories and done-deal changes, I can't see it.  What I do see is a different direction and a lot of little things that spell a move toward a positive, proactive, collaborative, "bring us together" style of leadership.  If anything, the prize is more of an endorsement of a type of leadership.  Critics will say this is empty hero worship, but perhaps there's more to it than meets the eye.  Nobody questions it when the prize is given for inventions or discoveries, but what if you could give the prize for inventing, or reinventing, a leadership pattern that advances the cause of peace. 

If the President were an academic, and this leadership style we speak of were on paper, nobody would think twice of giving it an award, especially if it promised to change the world in a good way.  The President's difficulty is that he's not an academic, speaking theoretically.  He's a world leader, taking action on the world stage.  We want to focus on the bottom line, of whether Obama has achieved victory in this battle or that.  Has he found Osama bin Laden?  Has he solved the healthcare crisis in America?  What the Nobel Committee is looking at is the discovery, invention or reinvention of a style of leadership that isn't a guarantee of success as much as an advance toward the cause of peace.  If more leaders would do as Obama has already started to do, war might not be impossible, but it would definitely be less likely.  Leaders who aggressively seek peace - not through surrender or obliteration of their enemies but by pressing them to focus on achievable solutions - are the peacemakers.  

Maybe the Nobel Committee had high hopes that Obama best exemplified a working model for achieving peace.

Sorry Bill but I think you need to rethink!

Obama had to be nominated within two weeks of winning the Presidency thus he had had absolutely No Time to do a thing to win the Nobel Prize in the category of world peace. NADA; NOTHING; NO THING!

It was a popularity prize that now should be offered in every box of Cracker Jacks. It is now worthless other than for the cash value.

You obviously don't understand world politics as you address Bush and the Middle East so it is probably futile to discuss the need to enter Iraq and unseat Saddam Hussein. It had long been considered since he was a mass murderer but because of the instability of the under-leaders in that country it had never been considered worth the cost. Only once that countries under-leadership was strong enough to establish a new "stable" government could and should that invasion be undertaken.

BUT - since that has nothing to do with the topic I will not go any further with that.

The NPP is NOT to be given on "hope" for the future it is an award given based on proof of achievement and therefore he had done nothing to even be considered. If He were a true leader he would have refused to accept it! He would have stood up to declare that he had yet done nothing to "Earn" it. He did take "a" noble position once hearing of their choice but he did not take the true high road.

Last point in reference to your post but not totally on topic - Gore did nothing to receive his award either but at least he has been talking a good sounding talk.

Shalom,

Okay technically it is an "application" but in fact it serves as a nomination for consideration by the committee and therefore my reasoning still holds absolutely true!