On air: Obama receives the Peace Prize

President Obama has accepted the 2009 Nobel Prize for Peace. In his 30 minute lecture after receiving the award he gave a justification for the two wars he is leading, saying there is such a thing as a “just war”, and that “instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace”. You can read the full transcript here.

He was awarded the prize for “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”.

There are so many issues that this award continues to bring up so we’re going to throw it open to you, to pick up on the aspects that get you going the most….

– Do you agree with President Obama? Can instruments of war preserve peace?

– Did the Nobel committee get it right in the first place? Should a man leading two wars receive the Peace Prize?

– President Obama acknowledged to journalists that there may be others who are more deserving. So should he have turned it down?

– If you think President Obama is undeserving, tell us what actions you think would make him worthy of such an accolade?

– He’s irritated many Norwegians but not taking part in many of the traditional activities that go with being awarded the prize, including having lunch with the King of Norway. Has he been rude, as 44% of Norwegians think?

– What effect do you think this is going to have on his presidency?

192 Responses to “On air: Obama receives the Peace Prize”

  1. 1 steve
    December 10, 2009 at 14:01

    Congrats on winning the Nobel Hope prize. I wish to be next year’s winner, so with that in mind, I declare the following : There should be world peace, and all diseases should be cured!

    • 2 zizi
      December 11, 2009 at 13:51

      Still haven’t got over why Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I have prayed every day for the past 20 years for peace on earth but no one seems to be listening nor have I been awarded a prize.

      • December 11, 2009 at 16:50


        Since you have had such a long standing personal commitment to world peace, I would encourage you to read the book “Give Peace A Deadline” and participate in the Peace in 5 Years movement. http://p5y.org/ This is the world’s first comprehensive, metric-accountability peace movement ever undertaken and your personal commitment would be better served by giving it a shot. Prayer is very important, however, specific action in your community and the world at large will go much farther in affecting real world change.


  2. 4 Julie P
    December 10, 2009 at 14:25

    I suspect the green eyed monster will appear over someone else’s success. Congratulations, President Barack Obama.

    • 5 Ken Thomas
      December 10, 2009 at 18:50

      I suppose it depends on your definition of “success”. He was in office for, what, 12 days when the nomination process ended. Is that success? Is being elected President of the United States enough?

      At this point, he is all promises and nothing more. I hope someday he becomes a great president, but he is not there by a long, long way. He can’t even stand up to Nancy Pelosi.

      I thought the Nobel went wobbly when Al Gore won it. Now it is beyond doubt.

  3. 6 gary
    December 10, 2009 at 14:42

    If we imagine (and I do), that communication will foster the tolerance that allows peace to grow, then this program is the more deserving of the Prize.

  4. 7 Linda from Italy
    December 10, 2009 at 14:46

    This prize is potentially a tragedy for Mr Obama, it is much too early and will give those in the US who actively hate him and want to do him down at all costs valuable ammunition. Many of us in Europe were incredibly naïve imagining he could change the world over night, extricate us from Bush’s wars, solve the Palestine question after years of propping up Israel’s ghastly policies and then there’s that small matter of the economic holocaust, not to mention soon-to-fry-us global warming.
    Obama has his work cut out and let’s hope this Nobel embarrassment doesn’t turn out to be yet another albatross round his neck.

    • December 10, 2009 at 17:04

      I totally agree, Linda! The world is embracing Mr. Obama with great expectations that might smother him and his potential in a bear hug of hope.

    • 9 Philip in California
      December 10, 2009 at 23:06

      The prize that Obama just received will put more pressure on him to get his jobs done correctly. I am sure that it will not be easy but let hope for a better world we live now.

      • December 11, 2009 at 11:12

        Do strongly agree and I think this is what the team must have had in mind…Knowing that so many people ‘ of promise’ are so often derailed, why not be ‘proactive”? This could actually help him achieve the promise and we will help him along the way by declaring those against his prize as ‘spoilers”.. Go Obama, Go!!!

  5. December 10, 2009 at 14:50

    Everybody is far more deserving of it than Henry Kissinger.

  6. 12 Roy, Washington DC
    December 10, 2009 at 15:04

    “He was awarded the prize for “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”. ”

    After what President Bush did to our international relations, *anybody* is going to look good at diplomacy. By this reasoning, if I had somehow won the presidency myself, I would be in Norway right now receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. Perhaps we will eventually see results from Obama’s diplomacy, but for now, it is far too early to be giving him an award like this.

    • December 10, 2009 at 19:54

      Agree and disagree with you Roy. He indeed was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his “extraordinary efforts…etc.” NOT because he was elected President, but for what he has done. He has already changed the atmosphere in international dialogue and truly listens to the rest of the world. The next step is ACTION, of which he has taken many steps. The results will come. The world cannot be changed overnight and each and every one of us must contribute, if these dreams of change are to be forthcoming.

  7. 14 Tom K in Mpls
    December 10, 2009 at 15:10

    I think it is an empty over reaction to the fact that Bush Jr is no longer in office. Obama’s international actions have been practical, not inspired. If he continues this and blows off Iran, Israel and Palestine, I wonder what they will think then?

  8. 15 Gary Paudler
    December 10, 2009 at 15:27

    My first thought was that if the award affords Obama the stature to effect peace, then it is going to the right man. Obama was swept into office with a mandate to make sweeping changes, increasingly, however, this White House is looking like Bush’s, with smarter communications. Obama is in danger of allowing his political capital to wither while meaningful change is hopelessly diluted by compromise.
    I am fairly disgusted that he has the guts to suggest that war=peace.

    • December 10, 2009 at 17:08

      Amazing how different people can read and hear the facts, Gary. Nowhere did I hear / read the man say war = peace. Fair and honest debate means not muddying the discussion with interpretation taken out of context.

  9. 17 patti in cape coral
    December 10, 2009 at 15:35

    As much as I like Mr. Obama, I feel the prize was rewarded in part because of what people HOPE he will do, and as others has stated above, the last presidency was less popular and makes him look very good.

  10. 18 v harris
    December 10, 2009 at 15:36

    The Nobel Peace Prize has become an irrelevant political joke. Those who so hoped that Obama would improve America’s image in the world should analyze not only the negative fall-out of his accepting the award that he did not deserve, but then jetting in for a token appearance like a pompous rock star to deliver a speech justifying war! Just another entry in his mythical biography that no one ever seems to fact check.

    • December 10, 2009 at 17:15

      One can skew facts to the positive or negative, depending on one’s agenda. Folks who skew need to analyze their agendas as to what mythical truth they are trying to fabricate. I would suggest, “v”, that before you criticize, you might think about the effect of Mr. Obama embarrassing the Nobel committee by being the only designee to turn it down, and then the effect to the critics back home, if he had taken the time required to attend all of the usual functions normally accorded a Peace Prize winner.

      • 20 Ken Thomas
        December 10, 2009 at 19:09

        Yes, he should have turned it down.

        He should have said what most people are thinking. “Thank you for your gracious honor, but there are many people who are more deserving. Give me a few years to see how it goes, but don’t lose my phone number.”

        It would not have been an insult to the Nobel people, and it would have shown character.

      • 21 Tom K in Mpls
        December 10, 2009 at 19:37

        Why shouldn’t he ’embarrass’ them. I find the peace prize to be a contrived tool to fit the committees agenda. The science awards seem useful though. So Jodie, what is your skew/agenda? We all have one.

  11. 22 Karen
    December 10, 2009 at 15:37

    Get a prize for potential? Then I should get a promotion because I might bring in new clients this year. My sister should be awarded her doctorate, because she has the potential to write a really good thesis. And my son can skip the playoffs; his team is rated #1 so we can just award them the championship.

    • December 10, 2009 at 20:05

      Think you’ve made the connection–Nobel committee operates like the BCS for college football here; rank some team #1 and call them the champion (probably a little obscure for non-American audience), whether they’ve actually won on the field or not. This is far more about the committee than it is about the president.

  12. 24 vijay pillai
    December 10, 2009 at 15:39

    Now not only president of USA but also a chanpion of peace. That does not mean giving reason to every act of war or genocide or whatever ,like some commentator giving reason for looting precious artifets from colonial time as for save keeping from other looters.Good luck to President Obama,he is young and the world expect more from him and he is living up to it so far.

  13. 25 guykaks.nairobi
    December 10, 2009 at 15:53

    congrats!I see this as arecognition of good deeds of this learned friend.I proud of Him men.keep fighting a good fight and the end will just sound good!

  14. 26 Ronald
    December 10, 2009 at 15:55

    I am a great admirer of Obama, not withstanding that, I don’t think the Nobel Peace Prize should be given to him. It’s too early. He might have the potential to do some great things, but it simply is too early.

    Wait till he has done some thing that’s really significant in bringing world peace, such as solving the Middle East Problem.

  15. 27 Dan
    December 10, 2009 at 15:57

    Congrats to the winner of the Seinfeld Award for doing NOTHING.

    A peace prize for expanding war….that is like having sex to promote virginity.

  16. 28 Rachel in California, USA
    December 10, 2009 at 15:58

    The BBC only aired the first part of Obama’s Nobel acceptance speech, in which Obama is justifying America’s current wars. I liked the end of it better, when he called for the “expansion of our moral imagination.”

  17. 29 Malc Dow
    December 10, 2009 at 16:00

    We live in strange times. A war against terror that never existed, a peace prize for war… whatever next!

    • December 10, 2009 at 17:21

      What planet are you living on, Malc? The folks who have blown up buildings and trains and their own people in market places call what they do “terrorism”. Nobody gave Mr. Obama “a peace prize for war”. From the sound of your comment, you don’t have to wait for “whatever next”… you can make it up right now and post it as if it is a fact, because you say so.

  18. 31 Ibrahim in UK
    December 10, 2009 at 16:02

    He gets a prize for talking the talk.
    He is still leading the occupation of 2 countries.
    He is still financing, arming and protecting the occupation of another.
    He is still financing and arming dictatorships and the torture of civilians who want “change” just as much as he does.
    He is still continuing the aggressive and destructive foreign policy that all previous presidents have embarked on, except he does it with nice words and a Hollywood smile.
    If it’s too early in his leadership to criticise him , then it’s too early to congratulate him too.

  19. 32 Tara Ballance, Montreal Canada
    December 10, 2009 at 16:06

    I read the President’s acceptance speech with great care, and I am looking forward to hearing his words on-line later today.

    I think Mr. Obama made important points about the balance between peace and war, points which underlie the purpose and function of military groups such as the UN Peacekeeping forces.

    I was pleased to see that he also talked about economic issues as fundamental to peace issues: food, water, health care; that he identified intranational conflict as a major concern; that he insisted upon the critical role of diplomacy in his world view.

    But if all you want from me is a sound bite, here you go.

    Mr. Obama’s speech builds eloquently upon the maxim of his fellow Nobel laureate and US President, Theodore Roosevelt: Speak softly and carry a big stick.

  20. 34 Guido
    December 10, 2009 at 16:11

    I think the price for Obama is a very bad signal to the rest of the world. The defeat of the enemy (like planned in Afghanistan) do not achieve a stable peace. There are plenty of examples where conflicts ended violently and started again some years later; Europe after the first world war, the middle east…

    What about giving the next peace price to the Sri Lankan government for ending the conflict with the Tamils?

    • December 10, 2009 at 17:27

      Are you serious, Guido? Talk about skewing the facts for one’s political benefit… the Sri Lankan government is a pro at that from all that I’ve heard reported over the years. On top of that, your example presents exactly the scenario, for which you criticize the Nobel committee… the civil war in Sri Lanka ended in a bloody shoot out with civilians caught in the middle. With the wealth and passion of the Sri Lankan diaspora, there is a good possibility that the civil war is only paused, not ended.

  21. December 10, 2009 at 16:12

    I think President Obama deserves the prize because the noble committee saw the potential in him before awarding him the prize. Why you think the committee did not award the the prize to George Bush when he was president?, it is because he was a war monger. But president Obama has always portrails the potential of peace building and so he deserves the peace prize.

    Mohammed Kondawa

    Monrovia Liberia

    • December 10, 2009 at 17:31

      I totally agree, Mohammed. It was the Nobel committee’s choice and they chose to award “potential” this year… not only because Mr. Obama talks about “potential”, but also because he inspires people ALL OVER THE WORLD to embrace that potential with him.

  22. 38 Andrew in Australia
    December 10, 2009 at 16:13

    Were the Nobel committee jumping on the Obama bandwagon? He certainly had the right charisma to get elected, though I always maintain no one wins an election, just the other candidate loses it. That said, what has he achieved? Especially to have deserved this accolade?

    Sadly this was just a fad choice and even worse we will see that this choice will have been totally undeserved. After all why should Obama do anything having already been praised with a peace prize? But the workings of US politics mean that he alone cannot achieve much if Congress is against him. A one term president unless the republicans choose to run Palin against him in a few years time!

    • December 10, 2009 at 17:36

      I think consistency is the hallmark of a person’s character, Andrew. Mr. Obama is consistent in his ideals which he consistently works to fulfill pragmatically. Every step of his life since deciding on the path he would take has adhered to this credo. Skepticism is good and healthy, but to state skepticism as a fact (“After all why should Obama do anything having already been praised with a peace prize?”) denies the facts of Mr. Obama’s history. You might not agree with what he does in future, but he WILL “do”… it is in his nature to act.

  23. 40 Ben Asoro (Nigeria).
    December 10, 2009 at 16:19

    I think I understand the reason why the Nobel commitee gave it to Obama- no one man in a really long time had vocalised the imaginations, dreams, hopes, and aspirations of the whole of humanity like the way Obama did. Obama gave electricity to hope in a time when it seemed hope had died. Obama definitely is not perfect man. Neither is he the Messiah. But I strongly believe he deserves the award.

  24. 44 ROADEAGL
    December 10, 2009 at 16:19

    I’ll bet that when he was awakened by an aide and told he won the NPP, his first thought was, ” Oh, crap!” At this early stage in his presidency he has many battles to fight and didn’t need to expend energy defending a selection made by someone else. To argue whether he deserves it gives too much legitimacy to the NPP itself. As far as what effect offending Norwegians will have on his presidency, are you kidding? Zero or less. I can’t imagine there are any American voters who will take this into account at re-election time. Why should they?

  25. 45 Tony from Singapura
    December 10, 2009 at 16:28

    I think Obama would have himself prefered they had given it to somebody else. They put him in a tough position – turn it down and make people unhappy, accept it and make people unhappy.

    Personally I think the organization that hands out these prizes made a mistake and have devalued the Nobel Peace Prize in the process.

  26. 46 Harrison Picot
    December 10, 2009 at 16:29

    The award seems to be mostly for not being Bush. I would think that someone who has been working without recognition to bring about peace in Palestine or Iraq would have been a much better choice. I think that the committee has cheapened the award by awarding it on promise rather than accomplishment or even effort.

  27. 47 George,Kenya
    December 10, 2009 at 16:33

    Does Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?Maybe.Ask me after 1 year and I will have a definitive answer then

  28. 48 George,Kenya
    December 10, 2009 at 16:34

    Does Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?Maybe.Ask me after 1 year and I will have a definitive YES or NO answer then

  29. 49 Dan
    December 10, 2009 at 16:36

    @Mohammed Kondawa
    We now give Peace prizes for potential?????
    Well I expect my award iminiently.
    Additionally you labeled George Bush a War Monger but Obama has added 33,000 more troops and NATO will add another 5,000 but Bush is the war monger.
    I think you need to recalibrate.

  30. 50 Eva , Berlin
    December 10, 2009 at 16:38

    I like very much the idea of Gary, that this program (whys) is the more deserving of the Prize. Maybe next time!
    But for now I think Obama is deserving it, as he started a new approach towards many issues (health reform, Russia, Middle East, Guantanamo). If he will be successful with his politics, is not clear yet. He cannot put away all the effects of what Bush’s politics within 8 years has started. He cannot be held accountable for that. He is a politician who explains his concepts to the people and tries do keep to his principles against very strong pressure from all sides.
    I also think that he is a politician with a more longterm perspective than most politicians I know.

  31. 51 Brad
    December 10, 2009 at 16:41

    Congrats Mr. President! Well deserved!

  32. December 10, 2009 at 16:44

    Can instruments of war preserve peace?
    Yes, certainly. Whether it is the best way or not however warrants further thought.

    Did the Nobel committee get it right in the first place? Should a man leading two wars receive the Peace Prize?
    If Henry Kissinger can get it, sure why not Obama.

    President Obama acknowledged to journalists that there may be others who are more deserving. So should he have turned it down?
    No. That’s terribly rude.

    If you think President Obama is undeserving, tell us what actions you think would make him worthy of such an accolade?
    I don’t think he is particularly undeserving. The Nobel Peace Prize isn’t necessarily awarded for achievements. The Dalai Lama hasn’t freed Tibet and Aung San Suu Kyi hasn’t brought democracy to Burma. It is frequently given to people with peaceful aspirations.

    That said, Obama can reduce his nuclear arsenal some more, foster democracy in Africa and elsewhere and continue to work on Iran as he is. The Israel/Palestine issue is a non-starter at this stage. Not sure what if anything he can do about North Korea. He can certainly make larger strides on mitigating the effects of Climate Change worldwide. He definitely needs to follow through on Guantanamo somehow.

    Has he been rude, as 44% of Norwegians think?
    Yeah, but it is understandable. I’m sure the Norwegians will get over it.

    What effect do you think this is going to have on his presidency?
    Nothing. However if he chooses to remain in public service after his term in office, I think this award will be a boost to whatever he decides to do.

  33. December 10, 2009 at 16:45

    I recently heard Mandela say “reconciliation is always possible”. President’t Obama’s speech affirms this statement. He spends a lot of time laying out the current situation around the world. However he is also realistic about the situtation in that there are nations in the world who are acting with only their self interest in mind. Until World Peace is a goal of the whole World, it will not happen. I think Obama has received the prize because he has re-engaged our country with other countries. That he counts them all important and valuable. His has visited many countries and will continue to do so. He speaks strongly against nations and ideologies that consider oppression integral to power. He is young, and the prize has come early perhaps, but the Nobel Committee wanted to affirm his aspirations for World Peace and communication. He understands that all nations must work together for true peace to arrive. The Nobel Committee is a sword for peace as well, and gives out the prize to peace warriors.

  34. December 10, 2009 at 16:53


    silly humans. Give a “peace prize” to a president overseeing two current wars that were started by the country of the person that is receiving the prize, and on the heals of an escalation in troop deployment.

    I am with the rest of the people who will be expecting my name on next year’s short list.

  35. December 10, 2009 at 16:53

    The Nobel Peace Prize has sadly become a political joke. Those who hoped that Obama would change America’s negative image must now deal with the fallout of our president accepting a peace prize that he did not deserve, then jetting into Copehagen like a pompous rock star to deliver a lecture on “a just war.” Just another entry into his mythical autobiography that has, up to now, eluded fact checking. Those days are over, however, not only in America, but worldwide. As the saying goes, “you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.”

  36. 57 Iain
    December 10, 2009 at 16:56

    He gets a prize for a) not being George Bush, and b) pinching Bob the Builder’s (a uk kids cartoon) catch phrase, can we fix it, yes we can.

    SO why not give the prize to Bob the Builder, he’s done more

  37. 58 Roberto
    December 10, 2009 at 17:11

    RE “” So should he have turned it down? “”

    ———- Absolutely not. That would be an insult of the highest order.

    What Obama should do is accept the award with all due humility and graciousness for the hopes and dreams of all those in past and present who worked for peaceful solutions.

    Which he did.

    Obama will always be a open target for his critics, no surprises there, but he continues to inspire globally and is slowly altering the landscape of intractable loggerheads of past politics.

    Whether it will be enough has yet to be played out.

  38. 59 Morf
    December 10, 2009 at 17:15

    Yes, it is easy to say that Obama got the Nobel Peace prize for not being Bush, but there is far more. If nothing else, President Obama (and are any of us NOT still in awe as we even use that term?) is the hallmark of a truly different era and way of looking at the world?

    Yes, of course, the expanding war in Afghanistan is messy and certainly not what any of us would want – but – what are the reasonable alternatives?

    If Obama is being recognized “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” – wouldn’t we agree that that much, at least, is true. What he (or any of us) will do in the future is entirely unknown – but he has linked with peoples across the world as no other leader has for decades at least.

    In common cause, and over time, perhaps, just perhaps, we can make our way to a better world.

  39. December 10, 2009 at 17:24

    “- Do you agree with President Obama? Can instruments of war preserve peace?”

    In certain cases, war is justified for peace and security. But it shouldn’t be a means for dominance.

    A war can be just the first step to put things right. It must be followed by concrete actions to preserve peace. In the case of Afghanistan, the populations need infrastructure and a good government above all forms of corruption.

    Europe wouldn’t have become a stable and a prosperous continent after the Second World War without Marshall Plan that put it on the right track.

  40. 61 James
    December 10, 2009 at 17:38

    Ros’, I think he handle the whole thing, most graciously. I’m grateful for the small part of his speech, that was for people like myself. The part about fighting wars! I got the sense that he really understood the harm to his soul, by continuing this war? My sense is, he recognized that there are other options, but continuing the war was the only one he could have taken, and the best relief for him was to set a time table for ending the combat. Maybe?

  41. 62 Tom in the U.S.A.
    December 10, 2009 at 17:39

    George W. Bush was such a complete failure that just about any new U.S. president would be a strong contender for this prize. Obama is deserving of the award for several reasons. First, he has changed international discourse on a wide variety of topics that can have an impact on peace. Moreover, there don’t seem to many other contenders. Whenever I ask the Obama haters to name someone else more deserving, they come up empty.

  42. 63 Nigel
    December 10, 2009 at 17:41

    Bush created a wars to make peace and got no prize. Obama expands the same wars in ways that offer little chance of bringing peace and he get a peace prize. Don’t like Bush one little bit but the logic of this escapes me.

  43. 64 Jennifer
    December 10, 2009 at 17:51

    – Did the Nobel committee get it right in the first place? Should a man leading two wars receive the Peace Prize?

    A good question! No, I don’t think so. It seems to me this award is simply a joke. Then again, wasn’t it only 2 weeks into term that Obama’s name was put in the pot? Just undeserving all around!

    – President Obama acknowledged to journalists that there may be others who are more deserving. So should he have turned it down?

    I certainly wouldn’t have wanted a prize of which I was undeserving. Maybe it should have been a special award; the Hope prize. That way, he could be reminded of the hope that people place in him to make wise and good judgment honestly and motivated to act accordingly.

    – He’s irritated many Norwegians but not taking part in many of the traditional activities that go with being awarded the prize, including having lunch with the King of Norway. Has he been rude, as 44% of Norwegians think?

    Yes; rockstar rude.

    – What effect do you think this is going to have on his presidency?
    None. People still don’t want to admit that he’s continued many of Bush’s policies and fulfilled very little of his promises to supporters. This is just one of many “presents” being bestowed for no legitimate reason.

  44. December 10, 2009 at 18:01

    President Obama deserves the Nobel Prize as he has really shown astute leadership and managed to command the respect of key world leaders within eleven months. Charismatic, attentive and with a powerful legal brain, he has managed to revitalize America’s economy and has made America likeable again. There are so many postives about Obama. The Nobel committee recognized his contributions and his grand vision.
    Instruments of war strengthen peace. especially as they act as deterents! Diplomacy is the main plank but when diplomacy fails, strong threats could dissuade belligerant nations from bullying weaker ones. Power should be used wisely and sensibly. The clout of the United states and that of NATO have made the world a safer place. Unfortunately it would not be fair to ask America to be the world’s policeman. Give Obama the chance to make America the envy of the world. He has the guts and tremendous acumen.

  45. December 10, 2009 at 18:04

    Obama is now under more obligation to use US might to help establishing peace around the world in the name of universal values and not just for US supreme national interests. Now he isn’t just US president but a Peace Nobel Prize winner. He must have surprised or even angered many by winning it. But he should prove his critics wrong by being a messenger of peace, not merely through eloquent speeches but through tangible actions.

  46. 67 Citizen Dan
    December 10, 2009 at 18:04

    From George Bush I’s ‘Little Beirut’ in Cosmopolitain Portland, Oregon.

    The Nobel Committee, for better or worse , attempted to use the publicity it commands as a stick and its award as a carrot in a futile attempt to coax the course of history in a peaceful direction. Obama might have refused, but who among us would turn down that kind of money?

    As for, “Instruments of war are sometimes necessary to preserve peace,” I still side with Gandhi and Einstein on that one. Enemies of peace in the Middle East are amateurs compared to the great war economies that rule the West. Obama has ever been their creature. With this reward, the Committee exhibited its idealistic naiveté, squandering both its resources and credibility, and risking future relevance; not necessarily a bad thing, when done in a good cause.

    I retain hope for Obama’s personal integrity, that once he is freed from his military / industrial masters’ dictates, in retirement, he may yet use his prize to become a potent force for peace, in the mold of Jimmy Carter.

  47. December 10, 2009 at 18:10

    Congratulations, Mr. President. You do our nation proud for the acknowledged potential of peace and understanding with which you have inspired the world (and thereby the Nobel committee).

  48. 69 eSCe
    December 10, 2009 at 18:16

    The Nobel peace prize has been awarded to many un deserving people because the committe has always been politically motivated and contentious winners is nothing new.

  49. 70 Abdul Baseer from India
    December 10, 2009 at 18:18

    If you ask me I am with Obama for receiving the prize. Why will somebody not receive it if you are getting one. I will not say no to it, whether I deserve it or not.
    After all the people who decide NPP can make mistakes. It is pretty evident from Mr M K Gandhi not receiving one.

    Other qualification criteria to get NPP
    1. Become a president after the worst one.
    2. Be the first non-white president.
    3. Give hope, peace to people in speeches (not necessarily in actions, sending more combat troops for PEACE)
    4. Promise big changes, jobs, healthcare for all(though the jobless rate is hovering over 10%, and cost to healthcare is gigantic)
    5. Make big climate change commitments (Well just offset them to a different scale and you get a big number)

    If there was a Nobel prize for best politician I am sure Obama deserves it.

  50. 71 Shannon in Ohio
    December 10, 2009 at 18:21

    Obama’s detractors seem unable or unwilling to recognize the fact that the Peace Prize is often given to those who CONTINUE to struggle against poverty, oppression, violence, ignorance etc.

    The award itself acknowledges the recipient’s unwavering determination to visualize and work toward a better world–and inspire others to do the same–in the face of ongoing suffering and strife. Congratulations, Mr. President.

  51. December 10, 2009 at 18:23

    Let us not forget that Obama did not start any wars,he inherited them.I don’t know what some of you expected him to do? Bring home the troops and wash his hands of wars,or support them! I think he chose the right path and I wish him well.As regards the Nobel Peace Prize,I still think it was a little premature.We do not know what his private thoughts about it are,but to refuse the prize would have been a gross insult.He accepted it gracefully,ruffled a few feathers,but then,what leader dose’nt ruffle feathers.

  52. December 10, 2009 at 18:28

    I’m very proud of our President, and I think he exhibited the right degree of humility, and wisdom in his acceptance “lecture”. Remember he is in with a school of sharks swimming carefully. He is also in a den of hungry lions of human evil types. As he said the methods of Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and Sister Teresa would certainly not work for a head of state and the commander in chief…….the lions and sharks dressed in human suits would easily destroy him.

    He deserves the award, as his intent is so obvious, yet he is a war time President.

    He is doing well,

    troop,…….. on the Oregon Coast

  53. 74 stephen/portland
    December 10, 2009 at 18:31

    Don’t get me wrong I like Obama!

    He got the little known prize known as “NOT BEING GEORGE W BUSH PEACE PRIZE”

    I said this before but if Attila the Hun had won the election after eight years of Bush and Cheney administration Attila would seam to be a peacemaker and would be there to get his award, and possible plunder a wee bit.

  54. 75 Mr. Kawakubo
    December 10, 2009 at 18:32

    Originally, I found Mr. Obama’s diction and intonation charming, now with a little history behind him, his speech sounds artificial and contrived. His cart has always come before his horse. His popularity was and is symbolic and inflated. His election and the winning of the peace prize were not predicated on his achievements, they were based on the public’s romantic expectations of the man they think he is. Our universe is too quick to glorify, and I suppose too quick to vilify. We Susan Boyle everyone, and sometimes rapid growth ruins the quality of the fruit… .

  55. 76 Dennis Neal Hanes
    December 10, 2009 at 18:43

    My thinking is this. To paraphrase Martin Luther King
    I will judge him on the content of his chacter and his contabutions
    Dennis Neal Hanes

  56. 77 rob z.
    December 10, 2009 at 18:51

    I like Obama and support what he is trying to do,clean-up a big mess left to him;and promote change for the good of every one.All of which is an up-hill battle.
    I do agree that the award is premature;but I wouldn’t turn it down either,who would in all honesty-alot comes with it.
    The award is not a reflection on him,but on those who gave it to him.Don’t hold against him;if you were working for a company and the boss gave you a$100 bonus and then gave a coworker $1,000 bonus-who do you blame?
    Rob in Florida

  57. 78 Patrick in Vancouver
    December 10, 2009 at 18:55

    When compared to the George Bush, the weapon of mass destruction the world suffered under for what seemed to be an eternity, any intelligent reasonable person could be a candidate for the prize.

    Obama might rise up to the challenge as a leader of the most violent nation in the world and be a great force for peace by limiting our destructive potential. If he does, the change all the people in the world we see will justify this honor. Even if he falls short of his potential, we are going to be better off than we were under the evil regime of Bush and Cheney.

    In the context of this contrast between the two administrations, the prize seems appropriate. Compared to some who have received the prize in the past, we will have to wait and see.

  58. 79 Bert
    December 10, 2009 at 19:04

    The Nobel peace prize decision was made way too early on in his tenure to be credible, in my opinion. I don’t think that the peace prize decision will seem quite so good by the end of his four-year term. We shall see.

    What the decision did to me, though, was to add further skepticism in how I perceive these Nobel committee decisions. Specifically as relates to these non-technical and politically charged awards they hand out.

  59. 80 patti in cape coral
    December 10, 2009 at 19:05

    Regardless if he deserves this award or not, I don’t think it’s the type of thing you can turn down without insulting the people who gave it to you. As far as insulting Norway because he didn’t lunch with the king, I haven’t heard anything about how the king feels about it. I would be curious to know. I’m sure that publicly, anyways, he will be very gracious and understanding.

  60. December 10, 2009 at 19:09

    Obama was essentially in Oslo to receive the Peace Nobel Prize. He wasn’t there on a state visit. He shouldn’t be overstretched over ceremonies at the expense of state matters he should attend to. the Norwegians needn’t be angry at him as long as they understand he is a human beings who can’t carry out activities beyond his strength and time.

  61. 82 gideon anihson
    December 10, 2009 at 19:09

    Obama’s award is like a piece of meat hanging on a dog’s neck. If he successfully ends the war with good results, he becomes a hero. If he fails, he will have eaten the piece of meat hanging on his neck, thus not deserving it at all. It’s more of a responsibility than a price. (Gideon anihson, a nigerian living in the usa)

  62. 83 steve
    December 10, 2009 at 19:11

    why give him the award now if even your guest says “give him time”?

    this award cheapens awards given in the past

  63. 84 Lisa from Pennsylvania, US
    December 10, 2009 at 19:13

    I find President Obama’s nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize to be a slap in the face to other, more qualified people who should have received it this year as well as to those who received it in the past. What has he done so far? If he had done even half of what he promised when he began his presidency, then it would have been fine. Further, his acceptance and strange behavior (not meeting with that king and leaving the area rather quickly) is an embarrassment to the U.S. I don’t think he should have accepted it, but at least if he was going to accept it he should have behaved appropriately and diplomatically toward the country hosting him. This also makes Obama himself look immature and inexperienced for his position, as well as this latest honor.

  64. 85 steve
    December 10, 2009 at 19:15

    Could you ask Jody Wililams if this award to Obama cheapens the award she received?

  65. 86 Nate, Portland OR
    December 10, 2009 at 19:16

    This award is looking stupider and stupider every day. Do the people who voted on this thing ever leave their mansions, castles, ivory towers or whatever it is they live in that keeps them from smelling the stench of the real world?

    As to what might make Obama deserve this thing, I think its almost impossible for the President of the USA to earn a peace prize in the current environment. At this point both the wars the previous president stirred up then grossly mismanaged are increasingly out of our hands. The Israel/Palestine conflict is an absolute mess. The US president can’t lead on climate change because 1) the US congress, industry and citizens won’t let him offer significant US sacrifices and 2) even if Obama could offer meaningful sacrifices the developing world insists on developing as quickly as possible which for the near future requires a carbon emitting energy infrastructure.

    I think Obama is doing a decent job, but there’s very little chance he’ll ever earn this thing. The resulting embarrassment should fall squarely on the Nobel committee.

  66. 87 Mike in Seattle
    December 10, 2009 at 19:16

    I just find it odd that so many are complaining about Obama getting the award as a head of state when others in the past have as well and no one bats an eyelash. It just feels like those who don’t like Obama already are using this occasion as another reason to complain.

    They suggest he not accept the award? What a brilliant way to kill all the diplomacy he’s trying to accomplish. It’s true that it’s early, and he’s said it several times. It would be a slap in the face to the world.

  67. 88 patti in cape coral
    December 10, 2009 at 19:17

    That is the problem wtih peace and pacifism. It only works if everybody wants it, and not everybody does.

  68. 89 amnaturelle
    December 10, 2009 at 19:17

    Fact: Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
    Fact: The Nobel committee–whatever their reasoning–decided to award it to him.
    Fact: Obama has accepted it and with caveats.

    Yes, it was surprising. But it’s done. And we are still at war. Let’s get over this and step up and work within our local communities and governments to propose and support measures which move us all closer to peace. Obama is only one man. One man on a war-torn world populated by BILLIONS.

  69. 90 viola
    December 10, 2009 at 19:18

    I was among those who were surprised by the award going to Barack Obama. It’s not the first time I was surprised, though. I’d love to know the committee’s criteria for the selection.

    Yes, instruments of war can preserve peace between factions that would otherwise be fighting each other.

    I don’t know if they got it right by awarding him the prize. I and many others obviously don’t know what the criteria is. I think it was given to him not for accomplishing peace, but for taking some actions that the committee thinks might lead to peace.

    When Obama said there are others more deserving, he was being suitably humble. Humility is a great quality.

    If the king of Norway doesn’t think he was rude by not lunching with him, I can’t see why anyone else would think he is. After all, when you issue an invitation to someone, it is implicit that it may be refused. Otherwise, it would be an order. Don’t issue the invitation if you cannot handle a refusal.


  70. December 10, 2009 at 19:18

    So what if the President had decided to send 40,000 troops to Afghanistan? Think that would have been a harder sell to the Nobel Prize Committee?

    I’m thinking that 30K was the number that kept the Peace Prize from being rescinded. It is just not right to win the Nobel Peace Prize and take the advice of a 5 star general on conducting a war. If he would have gone with the 40K they would have pulled the award and, well, its double jeopardy with those Nobel Prizes – once they pull the first one for too many troops they never give another one even when you retire and have nothing better to do.

    That’s our President – he knows how to work the ropes.

  71. 92 viola
    December 10, 2009 at 19:21

    It would have been rude and insulting to turn it down.

  72. 93 Adam Test
    December 10, 2009 at 19:22

    Is the year 1984? “WAR IS PEACE” I would like to mention The United States does not support the ban of landmines.

  73. 94 Sekony in Benin
    December 10, 2009 at 19:24

    In my point of view President Obama really deserve the prize when we consider his achievements even if they are not concrete.: He appeases international relations in his cairo speech when he called the islamic world to mutual understanding. He champions clean energy and advocate for world without weapons of mass destruction.
    above all those who think that obama does not deserve the prize should go back to Nobel last will where it is stipulated that the nobel should be granted to the person who has worked to establish fraternity between nations and fought against the race to armaments.
    Congratulation Mr.Obama

  74. 95 kidd
    December 10, 2009 at 19:27

    It’s The Nobel Prize, not The World Have Your Say Prize, in which case all of these criticisms might matter.

  75. 96 William Watson
    December 10, 2009 at 19:28

    Good or bad, deserved or not deserved, his name is PRESIDENT Obama. Let’s show a little respect, folks.

    • 97 Alex
      December 10, 2009 at 23:28

      His name is Barrack Hussein Obama and he is indeed a president of Americans, not anyone else’s. Therefore I do not see any reasons why others should address him as such. And respect is earned not granted.

    December 10, 2009 at 19:29

    let’s not forget, it’s the Nobel PEACE prize and not the Nobel PACIFISM prize.

  77. 99 Tom D Ford
    December 10, 2009 at 19:29

    Two points:

    I think it is wrong of him to disrespect the people of Norway by not participating completely in all of the protocols involved in the awarding of the prize.

    And I heard an interview this morning with General MacChrystal in which the General said he plans to be at war in Afghanistan for many more years, so I have to wonder if Commander in Chief Obama is really in charge of that war.

  78. 100 evelyn gerson in indianapolis
    December 10, 2009 at 19:29

    shame on the prize committee for not awarding the peace prize to ellen johnson sirleaf, the FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT of liberia. if working for peace and reconcilliation inside a country of rape victims and former child soliders isn’t worthy of world attention, what is?

  79. 101 Citizen Q
    December 10, 2009 at 19:30

    In most countries if you give a politician a ‘gift’ before they do something it is usally called a bribe.

  80. 102 Mel
    December 10, 2009 at 19:31

    Obama has done nothing to deserve this prize and should have turned it down. Hearing others saying that he had no choice but to accept it because it was ‘polite’ is ridiculous. Le Duc Tho turned it down because he did not feel he had earned it, but at least he had done something to even be considered. Obama should not have been nominated nor should he have accepted this. It just shows he didn’t have the guts to politely refuse the prize. Even Obama said others might be more deserving. Really? Tell me something we don’t already know!

  81. 103 Eva , Berlin
    December 10, 2009 at 19:31

    @ the lady calling from Canada: Obama cannot be blamed for the mistakes and disasters US presidents have committed in the past

    • 104 Tara Ballance, Montreal Canada
      December 10, 2009 at 21:07

      I don’t blame Mr. Obama for the mistakes and disasters of the past. I respect him for acknowledging that they occurred and for pledging to do better in the future.

  82. 105 chinaski in LA
    December 10, 2009 at 19:31

    The Nobel Peace Prize has lost credibility and substance.

  83. 106 JP
    December 10, 2009 at 19:32

    A number of civil rights workers have been awarded the Nobel Prize for working to bring people of different races, ethnicities, and perspectives together. Is it not a significant achievement in the field of race relations that a black man was able to bring enough people together to elect him president of the United States? Could Martin Luther King, Jr have imagined such a possibility when he fought for the just treatment of African-Americans? Is Obama’s election alone not a major accomplishment in bridging differences that have divided white and black Americans since the age of slavery?

  84. 107 Annette , (WGCU) Florida
    December 10, 2009 at 19:32

    Question for Jody.
    I would like to know, SPECIFICALLY, what actions Mr. Obama should have taken in Afghanistan.

  85. 108 chris from pennsylvania
    December 10, 2009 at 19:34

    whether or not he deserves it, do not criticize Obama or the US people. it was not the US that nominated him or awarded the prize to him.

  86. 109 Sekony in Benin
    December 10, 2009 at 19:35

    Not does he deserve it but it’s also a way for the nobel prize commitee to use him,with his charism and leadership as an ambassador for world peace. And he his the best for that function.

  87. 110 Dan
    December 10, 2009 at 19:35

    I am amazed at all the people that never spoken with, seen, written to or had anything to do with Obama yet are ascribing values action and what is in Obama’s mind.
    The reality is that Obama did nothing and if giving awards for potential is an outgrowth of giving all children an award at a game or not using a red grading pen in schools so as to not damage their self-esteem.
    If that was applied to Obama then they have infantalized another Black re-enslaving them.

    • 111 Sekony in Benin
      December 10, 2009 at 19:51

      Just go and see Nobel last will. All the conditions for awarding a Nobel Prize for peace are clearly mentioned and Obama choice does respect the will of Alfred Nobel.
      I will agree if people say that other persons deserve it too . But but saying that Obama does not deserve is wrong.
      Obama may not be your choice or preference for nobel but he deserve it.

  88. 112 Deirdre Sarasota, Florida USA
    December 10, 2009 at 19:36

    I never believed that Obama deserved the Nobel Prize.

    I was against the war(s) from the beginning. However, he DID NOT start the Afghan War! Bush was so anxious to avenge his Daddy in Iraq that he left Afghan woefully ‘understaffed’. If cannot walk away now. We abandoned Afghanistan that in the ’80’s when the Soviets pulled out and caused the rise of the Taliban!!

  89. 113 Sekony in Benin
    December 10, 2009 at 19:37

    Not only does he deserve it but it’s also a way for the nobel prize commitee to use him,with his charism and leadership as an ambassador for world peace. And he his the best for that function.

  90. 114 Dominic
    December 10, 2009 at 19:37

    Obama hasn’t achieved anything significant yet and it looks even worse when we refer what he’s done to his resources: the greatest army on the plante, influences in every part of the world. An Iranian activist for human rights hadn’t any of them but managed to do enough to deserve the price. Giving the prize as an encouragement decreases its value.

  91. December 10, 2009 at 19:39

    I admit, I did not vote for Obama and I am far from pleased with the direction our government is driving our country )noe was I impressed with GW Bush.) That said, he is the executive of our country, and I respect the office.

    It was embarrassing for me when Obama was given the peace prize. It was clear that a forign body was attempting to endorse and influence our government. I am concerned with how we as a nation cinduct our selfs as a nation on the world stage. I could care less if the world likes us.

  92. 116 Anya
    December 10, 2009 at 19:40

    It’s worth pointing out that Barack Obama was not the one who started the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan. I feel, in general, the president gets a lot of blame for not doing good enough job of cleaning up the mess made by former Bush administration in Afghanistan and elsewhere. But even his critics would agree that compare to previous administration he has very different tone and approach to all international relations. I have not done enough research to say conclusively if someone else deserves the Nobel Peace Prize more, but I do not agree with those who claim that the only thing Barack Obama is good at is making promising speeches.

  93. December 10, 2009 at 19:41

    How can you even say there is no such thing as a just war in less than 100 years from the holocaust? Have you completely forgotten US’s role in World War II? Or would you rather Hitler had gone on to be successful in his ethnic cleansing agenda and the US never intervened with violence removed him from the face of the earth?

    Obama big achievement so far is that he’s made the world ready to listen to America once again and to give it another chance to prove that it is worthy of their trust and that they’re right to look to it for leadership in all aspects – be it the economy, climate or just war.

  94. 118 Emmanuel Coleman, Accra
    December 10, 2009 at 19:42

    The notion that the award is premature is not in context of my understanding simply because the award committee made it clear that it’s because of his EFFORTS to strengthen international deplomacy they are awarding him this honour and NOT HIS SUCCESSES. This is what Obama stood for even before he won the general elections. The Americal community voted for this among many other issues. Whether he won the election or not, he deserve this award simply because he made his ideology clear.This award is for what he stands for. And guess what; if he continues this way in his diplomacy with the nations of the world, he will win it a second and a third time.
    Congratulations Mr President. More grease to your elbow.

  95. 119 John LaGrua/New York
    December 10, 2009 at 19:45

    If the prize stiffens his spine to take very tough decisions for peace then the premature act by the Noble Committee will be validated.So far his actons do not give me much confidence that he is mature enough to effectively take on the various power groups who defend the status quo..Afghanistan ,Guantanimo .Palestinian/Isreal .and US foreign policy in general .He will continue to be a prisoner of the past until he fully comprehends the power he could wield even against the most formidable opposition.and demonstrates the courage to follows rhetoric with deeds.He has begun to squander his post electoral support by half measures and timidity.He was elected to act boldly and now appears to compromise than lead ,Sadly he might not get another chance.Fortune favors the brave!

  96. 120 Brian Lawrence
    December 10, 2009 at 19:46

    . What he has accomplished that gives him the right to this prize is being elected President of the most racist country in the world by including everyone in his vision of fairness, equality for all. Something every soul in the world would like to see. Quite an achievement. He is in the process of making this dream a reality. I would say most people in the world that have been oppressed applaud this President.

  97. 121 Annette , (WGCU) Florida
    December 10, 2009 at 19:48

    MOOT !!! Does Mr. Obama deserve the prize is a moot point. Why are we wasting time discussing that point??

    I think that the Nobel Committee’s decision is a reflection of confused state that exists in the world right now.

    We are confused about how to deal with the problems so we look to the place where HOPE is expressed.

  98. 122 Forest
    December 10, 2009 at 19:48

    I think the comittee was perhaps trying to steer Obama by awarding him the prize. Too bad it didn’t work …

  99. 123 Pradeep in Trinidad
    December 10, 2009 at 19:48

    There are many realities in the world that are not consistent with peace. Like it or not, there is evil and making Obama the receipient of this prize brings significant attention to the peace process and his ability to influence it. There are many attractive alternatives to peace (yes, there are such people) and unless we succeed in getting more leverage for peace, we will not stem the tide of war and destruction.

  100. 124 Deborah Kaz
    December 10, 2009 at 19:48

    I have mixed feelings about Mr. Obama winning the Peace Prize but feel that to refuse it is throwing the decision of the committee back in their face and not quite the right thing to do either. Their decision is just that, THEIR decision.

    I would like to say that in some ways, this show so far has not been a dialogue, but one or two of your featured guests presenting a lecture. Again, I cannot disagree with everything your prior prize winner is saying, but I want to hear discussion not a lecture from her.

  101. December 10, 2009 at 19:49

    Obama was given the peace prize shortly after being elected president of the united states. The prize was given because he was able to become the first non-white president in a country that is the set of white supremacy in the world. The world wide pain caused by white supremacy is and has always been the number problem in the world. His election was a big step in moving the supremacy attitudes off non-whites. The committee could see the supremacy problem even if other whites in the world will never take ownership of the problem.

  102. 126 margaret
    December 10, 2009 at 19:49

    The Nobel committee can give out their prizes to whom they please. You can always find someone more deserving for almost any award you care to give. Yes, I would have had lunch with the King of Norway. Had the Afghanistan war been prosecuted properly from day one there would be no war going on there now. The Iraq war should never have happened. Obama inherited this huge mess and many people seem to forget that–he is doing the best he can under the circumstances. I shudder to think what the US would be doing if other political “celebrities and wannabees” were in charge.

  103. 127 tamara
    December 10, 2009 at 19:50

    Your guest’s comment abt voting for Obama and now feeling let down is exactly what was so frustrating about this past Presidential campaign. First of all, Obama promised the impossible and second he had no track record of accomplishing the impossible. Why his supporters were so naïve is mind-boggling to me. No one could have accomplished the things he promised. This Peace prize is another example of his being given something for promises.

  104. 128 Paul Brainard
    December 10, 2009 at 19:51

    I thought it was immediately clear that awarding the prize to Obama was as much about repudiating Bush’s presidency as anything to do with Obama himself. We have to remember how unpopular Bush was around the world, especially in Europe, and how frustrated and powerless people felt with regards to the policies he pursued. This in a way was finally their chance to attach a judgment to his legacy by contrast with his successor.

  105. 129 Tristan
    December 10, 2009 at 19:51

    The nature of the war makes the difference and justifies the nobel peace prize. Clarification:
    war for conquest over resources and land is not the war in Afghanistan. The US does not want to remain indefinitely. The goal is to empower and lift the Afghan people.
    Protect the innocent by minimizing the ability for terrorist harboring organizations such as the Taliban to regain power. THIS IS A PEACE KEEPING PROCESS!

    Obama has not accomplished much however he has helped deter Israel from construction in the West bank.

    He is blurring the HATE LINE that separates the Middle East from Israel and the West, A blurred line will make it harder for Militants to recruit and help rally nations to terror acts against the innocent.

  106. 130 Saut
    December 10, 2009 at 19:51

    In 1973, Vietnamese Le Duc Tho refused the Noble Peace Prize stating there is still no peace in his country. Kissinger accepted the Noble Peace Prize as “consolation prize” for ignominy of USA militrary failure in Vietnam.
    Pres Obama did no peace achievements, got a Noble Prize and even saw fit to lecture on war at the presentation ceremony.
    Sounds so Hollywood-ish. Soon Noble Peace Prize becoming Academy Awards.
    There is no getting away from “Hollywood”, even Noble Prize Committee got carried away with the political box-office 0f 2008: Pres Obama.

  107. 131 Adam from Portland, OR
    December 10, 2009 at 19:51

    I think the prize itself is not very meaningful. Just like any other committee (Pulitzer, for example), it is made up of human beings with various opinions and motivations just like the rest of us. That doesn’t make the Nobel Committee a bad bunch, it just means they’re susceptible to wishful thinking and politics like anyone else.

    If anything, your debate exposes deep fissures within the American liberal movement, between those regularly driven crazy by Obama’s actions (or inactions), and people who want to, at the very least, withhold judgment.

  108. 132 Michael
    December 10, 2009 at 19:52

    What about the unity Obama has brought to America by becoming the first black President? Would that be a good reason for this award?

  109. 135 Cheri
    December 10, 2009 at 19:55

    I don’t understand the argument that his efforts have not yet reached fruition. Rabin and Arafat received the Peace Prize, yet there is not yet a complete peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Rabin was assasinated for his attempts in the midst of his work to complete his efforts and Arafat did not actualize his original intentions. The Nobel Peace Prize is sometimes given for intent in order to support further efforts against all odds.

  110. 136 Carole in OR
    December 10, 2009 at 19:56

    I just have to toss this out there… Is the peace he created that of being the first black president. Did just by being elected he fostered peace between the races in the US and opened up opportunities for true peace between nations?

    • 137 Bert
      December 10, 2009 at 21:22

      If peace is created by having the voters elect the first black president, then it is the voters, not the president, who would deserve the peace prize. Don’t you think?

      Obama didn’t put himself in this position. We the people achieved that.

  111. 138 Marie
    December 10, 2009 at 19:57

    Yes, he deserves it. When was the last time a president brought so many people hope fir peace and change? There’s a difference between Bush at war and Ovama at war. Obama. Cares for the peace process. Bush had an agenda!!

  112. 139 Patrick McKerrow
    December 10, 2009 at 19:58

    Barack Obama is very deserving of the Nobel Peace prize. The basic reason for selecting him was:

    “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”

    He has indeed made those efforts and continues to do so and in this sense peace is well served and this US President is an extraordinary man in many ways. God bless him.

    Patrick McKerrow, London UK

  113. 140 Dan
    December 10, 2009 at 20:01

    Another EXCELLENT show!!!

  114. December 10, 2009 at 20:03

    Obama could not and should not publicly decline the prize because it would make the final winner look bad. The rule is that you have to be alive to receive the award. Just in case Obama dies (for whatever reason) then he will have gotten this award. I think the award is actually for the American voters that after Bush there is a peaceful transfer of power to a black man (I would say semi-Africian American or mixed race). Obama being the head of state for the U.S. so he’s it. Also remember that Obama did not start the two wars, he was NOT the decider. Maybe that is why the consertives are so upset about this award which looks anti-Bush.

  115. 142 Josh
    December 10, 2009 at 20:15

    For the first time in history America has a President who isn’t white, and for only the second time in history America has a President who isn’t old.

    Since America has finally, after 200-some-odd years, lived up to our ideals, I feel that Obama is getting the Prize as the representative of the entire Country.

    The first woman President should get one, too. Let’s hope it doesn’t take America another 200-some-odd years to fulfill that promise as well.

  116. 143 Matthew Houston
    December 10, 2009 at 20:18

    I can understand why Obama received the prize. There are very few people (if any other than him) who could have succeeded in negotiating the treacherous waters of American public opinion as an African-American…to become President. Such a person requires impeccable character, courage, etiquette and personal history. The accomplishment he’s being rewarded for is being who he is. The fact that he exists as he is in his particular place and time…that alone is worthy of the Nobel Prize.

  117. 144 mfon edet
    December 10, 2009 at 20:26

    presidentObama deservesthe award in my own view because as he said the war in iraq/afganistan can notbe ended across a dialouge table but by the use of force. let’s cheer him on to more success

  118. 145 Kevin PE
    December 10, 2009 at 20:30

    I wanted to write a whole comment on this and then realized I didn’t know what the hell I was talking about. President Obama seems to me to be quite an inspiration, and I do believe that many non – Americans believe, that he is a leader with whom they can talk. Regarding his prize, I am happy for him, but also agree that it is probably premature. Oh one last thing – Jody, your guest, got a “peace” prize? – Wouldn’t want to get on the wrong side of her.

  119. 146 Livia Varju
    December 10, 2009 at 20:30

    Not only is Obama totally undeserving of the Nobel Peace Prize, he is in addition rude not to accept the lunch invitation from the King of Norway. The decision to give him the Prize was a demented, incomprehensible one, not in line with the Will of Alfred Nobel. He is escalating the war in Afghanistan isntead of looking for peaceful solutions, for example, winning hearts and minds. The only thing he can do now to save this embarrassing situation and his reputation is to give the 1.4 million dollars to an organization really working for Peace. Livia

  120. December 10, 2009 at 20:53

    I do not know the FIX prerequisite for receiving the Nobel Peace Price, but I understand and support the idea that Obama was awarded the prize for “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”.

    Unlike President Obama, some world leaders in that past turned down all peaceful suggestions in fighting global warming. Some paid death ear to the whole world which entrusted them with power and waged world wars which partially lead to the bad economy situation now and resulted into the torture and killing of many innocent people.

    This is our chance, this is our moment, the time has come for us to rally our supports around Obama in seeking durable solutions to the issues of wars, WMB, Environmental degradations, Economy crisis, diseases and so forth.

  121. 148 Bob Penny
    December 10, 2009 at 21:37

    Theatre of the world of unreality. Is there any other prize awarded anywhere because of what one might achieve? Whhat we have seen is the perceived arrogance of someone wishing to conduct national and international business
    ala the backrooms of Chicago. You can take the man out od Chicago but you
    cannot take Chicago out of the man.

  122. 150 Moshe
    December 10, 2009 at 22:29

    Congratulations to President Obama.
    I have heard the usual bleeting that he should not have got it because he sent more troops to afghanistan.
    The surge in afghanistan is the best thing he has done so far. defeating the taliban & Al quaida is essential for peace, democracy & the free world.
    George w Bush- whose polotics were the polar opposite to mine- did in fact deserve a peace prize for ousting the Taliban & for toppling one of the worlds most ruthless dictators, Saddam Hussein, from power.

  123. December 10, 2009 at 22:53

    Obama done nothing to world peace.Since January 2009 every his speech or action
    is strengthening the power of Al- Qeada and Iran. Also every his word or action is creating more racial prejudices and tension between America and Islamic world since ever before, The Oslo jury did big mistake and awarding to Noble Peace Prize to Obama would be beneath the dignity of Norwegian parliament and its Noble prize..

  124. 152 mat hendriks
    December 10, 2009 at 23:21

    When this nobel- prize winner bring no “peace” among us.
    we can “forget” -peace- at all.
    We never will receive and deserve it.

    Peace is something we have to work for-every day.
    based on respect and equal partners
    can only grow on trust..

  125. 153 Matthew Houston
    December 10, 2009 at 23:22

    I was impressed by Obama’s humility. Perhaps ironically, he deserves the prize because he so willingly recognizes that his achievement is actually the achievement of many. He’s made it quite clear that his family – his wife and daughters – are himself.

  126. 154 hidup berjasa
    December 10, 2009 at 23:41

    Sadly the choice of the Nobel Peace Prize shows the tragic situation of the world now. It is an attempt by the Western world to repair the damage caused by the previous government of George Bush. The Eastern world has shown more civility especially from countries that were historically the “bad guys” – China, Russia and Japan. Strangely, peace can only occur when imperial powers are humbled. Would a US defeat in Afghanistan put an end to warmongering the same way that the defeat of the USSR in Afghanistan did?

  127. 155 hidup berjasa
    December 10, 2009 at 23:54

    President Obama claims that war is necessary. Maybe true, but who decides which wars are wars of liberation and which wars are wars of oppression. Surely it cannot be the country that started the war that decides whether a war is necessary or not? The UNSC was supposed to be the decider in such matters but the US invaded Iraq without a clear mandate from the UNSC. Thus the question lingers – was the war in Iraq justified especially as no WMDs were discovered? Could another “unnecessary” war happen again? Can wars also encourage countries that feel threatened to develop nuclear weapons such as North Korea and Iran? Would it be right for the Palestinians to interpret Obama’s speech that only war and not negotiations can end the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza?

  128. 156 Kevin
    December 11, 2009 at 00:47

    President Barack Obama is great, as an Smerican, I strongly beleive in him.

  129. 158 Howard
    December 11, 2009 at 01:18

    It is not too difficult to see that the award was given to him is pre-mature, if not a mistake. In my opinion, it was given to him because he is the first US black president. If his action or speech was carried out by a white president, no award will be given.

  130. 159 Bob Penny
    December 11, 2009 at 02:24

    No, President Obama has not earned the Nobel Peace Prize. In my world achievement is the cornerstone of recognition. Honor should be paid to those men and women who have endured and contributed to the advancement of humanity. If not achievement, what should we base recognition? All suggestions would be welcome.

  131. 160 Steve Woolley
    December 11, 2009 at 05:31

    Most of the discussion is strange when one considers that the “Prize” was actually awarded in January of 2009, approximately 4 days after Obama took office. The anouncement was not made for another 8-9 months. Considering this fact, most of the comments are wrong or misguided. What should be considered is the process, the credibility of the awards panel and what one can only consider a political agenda.

  132. 161 Joseph A. Migliore
    December 11, 2009 at 06:19

    I am very pleased to have seen the President accepting the Noble Peace Prize today, it is truly a great honor. However, I have yet to see a concerted effort, in launching a peace initiative, something major? Like the establishment of a Palestinian state, peace and stability in East Africa? Engagement in a dialogue with Iran, over their ambitions with pursuing and further developing nuclear-technology? Reconciliation and nation-building in Afghanistan?
    That’s because, since day-one, he has felt this compelling need to accommodate the other side, meaning the John McCain’s, Lindsay Graham’s, Sarah Palin’s and Neoconservatives. Its political and its all about strategy, they are grooming him for a second term, problem is….”I don’t think we have implemented the right strategy on Afghanistan and Pakistan I might add…” Where is the reconciliation process? Should he be on the same pedestal with Dr. Martin Luther King?
    I respect our President, he is a class-act and an eloquent speaker and I realize that the position of Commander in Chief has it’s responsibilities, but now, in the interest of global Peace and stability, it’s show time….Mr. President!

  133. 162 Zia
    December 11, 2009 at 07:10

    No he do not deserve noble peace prize….bcoz he already promoted two wars (in Iraq & in Afghanistan) and how come a man who directly involve in two WARS become eligible for any PEACE prize, the justifications he provided for those wars are totally unacceptable coz civilians are killed there, the life of any human being is as equal as it is of an American citizen’s life, there is no example in history which shows war bringing peace, war always create enemies, for the time being people can accept but in long run it really make clashes and spars. Any how this decision, by the management of noble prize really lessens the importance of Noble prize.

  134. 163 Mark in Iowa
    December 11, 2009 at 07:32

    I’m certainly glad the rest of the world holds Obama in such high esteem. Americans do not and why should they? He has done nothing since becoming the US President other than blame all the world’s evils and problems on “the prior administration”. But what has Obama done? Talk is cheap. I thought the Nobel Prize signified great achievement in some field. Evidently it is a cheap political prize devoid of significance.

  135. 164 Joseph A. Migliore
    December 11, 2009 at 09:29

    I am very pleased to have seen the President accepting the Noble Peace Prize today, it is truly a great honor.
    However, I have yet to see a concerted effort, in launching a peace initiative, something major? Like the establishment of a Palestinian state, peace and stability in East Africa, Darfur Sudan? Engagement in a dialogue with Iran, over their ambitions with pursuing and further developing nuclear-technology? Reconciliation and nation-building in Afghanistan?
    That’s because, since day-one, he has felt this compelling need to accommodate the other side, meaning the John McCain’s, Lindsay Graham’s, Sarah Palin’s and Neoconservatives. This represents a political maneuvering that I don’t necessarily agree with. Its political and its all about strategy, they are grooming him for a second term, problem is….”I don’t think we have implemented the right strategy on Afghanistan and Pakistan I might add…” Where is the reconciliation process? Should he be on the same pedestal with Dr. Martin Luther King?
    I respect our President, he is a class-act and an eloquent speaker and I realize that the position of Commander in Chief has it’s responsibilities, but now, in the interest of global peace and stability, it’s show time….Mr. President!

  136. December 11, 2009 at 09:35

    as long as you can even make people turn their heads in the streets for the good cause…..you are justified for a nobel peace prize.

    TV(tambua village/jebrock),HAMISI,VIHIGA,KENYA.

  137. December 11, 2009 at 09:38

    its not just those in the shortlist only that are liable for a prize….even an outsider.

    TV(tambua village/jebrock),HAMISI,VIHIGA,KENYA.

  138. 167 njeche olando
    December 11, 2009 at 09:48

    Obama is history by him self, wasn’t surprised, bravo. i believe he will be the icon for peace in the world and salvage the world economy from recession. this will make know he is mandated to propel the world to be hight than his predecessor . yes he deserve it. kenya

  139. 168 Bonduh
    December 11, 2009 at 09:58

    Well I thing the Nobel Peace Price Committee just wanted to thank Obama for becoming the president of Mighty USA and this just go a long way to portray how some people awarded this prize do not merit it.

  140. 169 Michael
    December 11, 2009 at 10:51

    As an American I am embarrassed by Obama’s actions, his complete lack of character and his global insensitivity. He has lied to the people everywhere. He has done nothing positive except to serve his own personal interest.

    He is a radical socialist determined to destroy the foundation of America and any other free world country that gets in his way. He should be impeached.

  141. December 11, 2009 at 12:53

    lol, To me awarding Obama the Nobel Peace Prize is like awarding Hugh Heffner the a Pulitzer Prize. “Hey he is not Larry Flint. It is about the content that is written about in his magazine.”

    you know, and I like the guy. I really do. I am pulling for him. He was handed a crap economy that had been raped and pillaged by a squadron of drunken sailors. He was handed two wars that we should have never been involved in. He was handed a country that had sunk in world opinion, and therefore world cooperation. On top of that he was seen as “The first black president” which came with extra strains and stipulations. During the campaign he showed great insight and understanding of the pulse of the growing majority of American people.

    Nothing in the world will change my mind that McPalin or Billary would not have been worse. By “worse”, meaning a faster decent. But man, he has to at least do the things he said he would do and that he could control in his election bid. Ending these wars falls squarely on his shoulders.

    Here is a question of topic for WHYS. “Is it right for a country to continue a war strictly because stopping it would further strain their economy?” lol, let us call a spade a spade here. 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan, means so many positive, but temporary, gains to the unemployment figure.

  142. 171 Bill
    December 11, 2009 at 13:01

    Let’s see: defending Bush-Era war criminals, and practices, giving the Treasury
    over to Wall St., doing nothing on Health Care and presiding over two occupations.
    I’d say the answer was clear.

  143. 172 Luci Smith
    December 11, 2009 at 14:15

    Just to make a point about politesse and being serious, one cannot help to see that President Obama was very serious in his approach to the Peace Prize. Okay, the Scandinavians have traditions with their drinking and letting their hair down that he did not live up to in Oslo. But I have watched coverage in Denmark and Sweden and the consensus I have heard is that people respect Obama even if they do not understand all of his actions.
    What I wrote above , I meant that Obama is only human. He hit the ground running before he even took over the Presidency from Bush. I was in the US for most of the first 100 days and all I heard in the media and all I heard people talking about was The Economy. No one person can be on top of all the issues at one time. It just isn’t humanly possible.

  144. 173 abubakr sadiq muhammad
    December 11, 2009 at 16:04

    the nobel prize is all about contribution to world peace and progress. the commander in chief of the wars Afghanistan and Iraq could not have brought about peace and progress by commanding wars in these places: Peace is yet to present in these places…With President Obama’s political pedigree and achievement,he deserves much more than a Nobel prize

  145. December 11, 2009 at 17:46

    President Obama would have deserved the NBP if he had pulled all the troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and sat around a table to resolve the differences. He’s going to have to do this anyway, so why do more people need to die? Afghanistan is not a ‘just’ war. Every person who was not directly involved with the 9/11 attack, who is killed, is one more person who didn’t need to die. You won’t ‘defeat’ the Taliban – this is simply a convenient name for a group of people with violently anti-West sentiments. The name is used by USA/UK just so we have a name for the bogeyman. There will always be people who hate the USA and the West. Who can blame them? We are rich at their expense, and we use up all the planet’s fuel. And our idea of ‘peace’ means we get to carrying on dominating the globe, and ‘they’ shut up and accept their lot. You won’t stop them hating us by killing more of them! To award a NBP to someone whose administration is costing lives so needlessly is just unbelievable. I wish somebody would award me the Peace prize, just so I could publically give it back or refuse to accept it!

    • 176 Moshe
      December 13, 2009 at 10:12

      President Obama would have deserved the NBP if he had pulled all the troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and sat around a table to resolve the differences.
      Iaiin, I suppose you think we should have just sat round the table with Adolf Hitler to “resolve differences” (in other words, cave in to him)?
      The appeasers of Adolf Hitler & the appeasers of Bin Laden utilise similar arguments.

  146. 177 Elias
    December 11, 2009 at 18:09

    People all over the world were most surprised that a black man achieved the Office of President of the United States which was thought of as being an imposibility, accordingly he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his achievement. His policies so far has not achieved much and yet to be proven successful.

  147. 178 John LaGrua/New York
    December 11, 2009 at 19:32

    His speach full of fine ideals but riddled with contradiction.It reflects the continued US dellusion that it can re-order the world as it desires.There is a sophomoric element,reminiscient of a university valedictorian address idealistic verging on naiivity..The unobsevered sense of a militarism that has infiltrated American thinking since WW 11 continues to shape policy even of those who are genuine in their desire for peace.Americans have sub-contracted war to the disadvantaged and gullible members of the society and,are for the most part oblivious of history; morally indifferent to the human misery their actions cause.The WTC event was a one off ,though dreadful, was nothing like the destruction of European and Japanese cities in WW11 The Germans and Japanese rejected mlitarism after such horror.Obama would do well to understand that lesson.,Wise men learn from the mistakes of others!.Having escaped war’s devastation on US soil ,these misadventures in Vietnam ,Somalia, Irag ,Afghanistan are surreal as video games,to a US public who are reduced to amoral spectators.and midless adolescents.Obama’s PR skills are excellent ,his judgement is fatally flawed .We are heading for a debacle.Cassandra ,sure, but Agamemnon fatally ignored her warning.!

  148. 179 Guillermo
    December 12, 2009 at 01:19

    It is astonishing what OBAMA said. A warrior of peace? He mentioned Hitler but if he is ignorant of history, the lord wars of that time could have done their job. But the military industry was seeking the prize of big money. Their error as to misdjudge Hitler.
    He prepared his armies in Russia. France and Great Britain disdained this little man and thought they had controll over him. Their miscalcultion led to another World War as it is called. So Obama is making a mistake to think that the Allied Force had to destroy Hitler. USA entered this War because of the big money. The lives of people are not important in this matters. So it is ridicule that he received the Nobel Peace.
    And his speech was the same as Bush, the Pope, Pinochet, Micheletti in Honduras and others. An excuse of the use of arms in name of Democracy.

  149. 180 T
    December 12, 2009 at 06:35

    Alfred Nobel invented dynamite. Obama is a war President.

    Nobel saw the need to promote peace (and excellence in other catagories). In his acceptance speech, Obama is politely saying we don’t care what the rest of the world thinks. We will do ANYTHING that it takes to defend ourselves and our way of life.

    How does he define a “just war.” Is it just as long as it promotes “U.S. democracy”? There are others in the world who don’t want that. Yet, what comes first? U.S. power and interests.

  150. 181 Susan
    December 12, 2009 at 21:38

    I think that President Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for freeing us from eight years of tyranny. Let us not forget that our country was in “meltdown” before he won the election. Those who feel that President Obama has not done anything yet need to remember two facts:

    1. The conservatives set up road blocks for each and every move that he makes; and

    2. When you are starting from ground zero, it takes a while to pick up speed.

    I feel that given a chance, President Obama will be one the greatest leaders in history. This chance necessitates exposing conservatives hypocrites who say on one hand that President Obama has done nothing and on the other hand doing everything they can to stop him from doing anything, even at the cost of our country.

  151. 182 Rico
    December 12, 2009 at 22:56

    To give Obama the prize is to take away the value of the effort of people that have been awarded the same prize after decades of dedication to the cause of peace, such as # 1993 – Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk, # 1991 – Aung San Suu Kyi and others.
    This has nothing to do with peace, it’s more of a political statement. If he fails, will he have to give it back 😀
    It is clear that this is against the spirit of the attribuition of the prize. maybe next year he will win the nobel prize of medicine, because he feels something needs to be done to “cure people”.
    What a pathetic decision.

  152. 183 rick
    December 13, 2009 at 06:45

    the complete abject failure to bring Israel to task over settlement expansion and subsequent failure to start peace negotiations brings me to the conclusion that no, he isn’t deserving.

    All the promise of the Cairo speech lays in tatters after his support for the Israeli position on the Goldstone report. US foreign policy is formulated in Jerusalem and any hope of change in US policy in that part of the world has come to an abrupt end.

    • 184 Moshe
      December 14, 2009 at 14:43

      Rick, Israel is not the barrier to peace in the Middle East. Israel has made more concessions now than at any time.
      The peace process has not succeeded because Mahmoud Abbass is trying to get into bed with Hamas, which seeks to destroy Israel.

      Obama pressured Israel to make the huge concessions they have agreed to.
      Sadly, the Palestinian Authority has thrown in its lot with Hamas who will not consider peace or a two state solution
      Obama has done his very best

  153. 185 T
    December 13, 2009 at 23:52

    No he shouldn’t have received this. But now, it doesn’t matter because there’s nothing left to hype in this story.

    In one month, how many people will be talking about this? None whatsoever.

  154. 186 David
    December 14, 2009 at 15:44

    I admire Obama. I wish I had the brain and characteristic of such a person. I wish him every bit of success in whatever he does especially for the world peace.

  155. 187 T
    December 14, 2009 at 18:51

    I recentl watched Obama’s acceptance speech. And how many contradictions were there?

    People worldwide have the right to live in freedom and express their views- MSM censorship is rampant in the States. Many times people are arrested, tasered and the held without charges.

    Peace is the ideal. But at times war is justified- How does this apply to Iraq OR to Afghanistan?

    The two main political parties are counting on the public’s ignorance to continue their policies. How come more people overseas seem to know about the States and their policies than the U.S. population?

  156. 188 T(no relation to T in N.Z.)
    December 14, 2009 at 23:35

    Will Obama winning this cheapen both the Peace Prize but other Nobel Prizes as well? Yes it will.

    Now, is it about actual achievements? Or is it a popularity contest? If it’s the second choice, take it a step further and set up a web site where people can vote for their favorite candidate.

    Memo to the Nobel Committee. Whatever you do, PLEASE don’t consult or sign any deals with Simon Cowell on this. I mean, how much money does this guy need?

  157. 189 Regina
    December 15, 2009 at 08:14

    The man deserves such laurels.

    Obama speak & act accordingly to promote regional security & global economic cooperation.

    Trying to moderate extremist is a tough job but yes such move has to be for the sake of peace.


  158. 190 EMMA OLUPOT
    December 18, 2009 at 12:37

    Well, maybe its time the big boys stood p for counting. Obama just might pay the price of winning an election the way he did!

  159. 191 EMMA OLUPOT
    December 18, 2009 at 12:42

    with great challenges come great victories. go big boy, you can do it OBAMA. Do what the world hoped you would DO!

  160. 192 claire
    January 4, 2010 at 17:55

    hmm.. So he deserves the NPP for being the 1st black president. Well that wasn’t any great shakes, as he only won because for the 1st time ever, black people in america voted because he was ‘one of them’. Yep it was wonderful that he got that far, but come on let’s take a step back.

    What has he done since being in power.. not a damn thing. Yes he made overtures to Iran, which as of this point haven’t made one jot of difference. Yes he discussed healthcare but that hasn’t got anywhere. He is a great talker but so far he hasn’t done a single thing worthy of talking about, save being the 1st black president and let’s face it, that’s the only reason the democrats had him and hilary in the race. They wanted to corner the voters who wouldn’t usually have given a crap.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: