Look, I like Obama but this is getting embarrassing. To honour Obama's efforts on international diplomacy and nuclear disarmament so soon really suggests that they were a bit desperate for a winner. His efforts are admirable and a refreshing change but I find it slightly depressing to hear them described as extraordinary. Perhaps they are, but that only shows how far the bar has dropped. He hasn't done anything that I wouldn't expect from any responsible leader and nothing that has really achieved anything - yet.
I felt a similar way when Jimmy Carter won. He probably did deserve it for the reason they gave it to him, but using that year's award to correct an historical oversight only shows what a lack of candidates they had that year. If the Nobel Peace Prize is to have any credibility, then they shouldn't simply not award it if they can't find anyone who has done anything recent to deserve it.
I have high hopes that Obama will eventually deserve it, but it is not an encouragement award.
Okay, that's nothing you haven't read already, so here is my prediction:
By tonight, US time, the right wing will be claiming the committee gave it to him this year because they expect him to be a single-term president.
Remember where you heard it first.
This one comes close: Bill Kristol in the Weekly Standard attempting to draw a line between Nobel Prizes and the fall of governments.
ReplyDeleteNow here's a challenge: can anyone find anything that Bill Kristol has predicted accurately?
If he tells you Sunday will follow Saturday, check your calendar.