Nobel Peace Prize? Or Anti-Bush Prize?
As I was driving to work this morning, I heard this bit of news and was as shocked as most of you probably were: President Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize.
“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future,” the Nobel committee said.
President Obama, who said he was “humbled” by the honor, accepted the award this morning as “a call to action.” And, with the exception of gracious congratulations from Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and, surprisingly, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, the response from conservatives was predictably critical, from liberals predictably laudatory.
My response was probably much like everyone else – shock that a President who has been in power for less than nine months, and who was nominated less than a month after taking office (the nomination deadline is February 1), could win an award that is associated with great accomplishments. Other than possibly the Stimulus (whose merits and successes are very much up for debate), what has he accomplished since becoming President? Certainly nothing on the world stage, which is what the Nobel Peace Prize is for.
I’m convinced that the Committee picked Obama more as a sign of appreciation that American voters last November ended eight years of their government, let’s face it, giving the middle finger to the rest of the world. There are many times that I worry that Obama is going too far in the opposite direction, but the George W. Bush way definitely was not the right way either. Certainly it wasn’t in the minds of much of the rest of the world.