While I do think its an honor for the President, I gotta ask: Doesn't anyone think this is a tad bit premature?
He hasn't even been in office for a year, and what has he actually accomplished worthy of the prize? Made speeches about nuclear disarmament (which is what the Nobel Committee cited)? Heck, every President since Eisenhower has made that speech! And the only one to actually make good on them was Ronald Reagen, and the prize committee snubbed him and gave it to the guy who surrendered.
About the only thing I can think of that Obama has done is to make people feel good about themselves -- a transitory state of affairs at best, but one hardly worthy of an award designed to honor those who have made a difference for peace. If that's going to be your litmus test, then why not nominate the Popular Pop Star of the Moment? There are activists in China, Cuba, and elsewhere who are far, far more deserving.
Not that I think Obama should turn the prize down, no siree. But awarding the prize for little more than to make some hamfisted political points cheapens the award, and diminishes its stature. Its becoming the Golden Globes of the International Politics set.
5 hours ago
No comments:
Post a Comment