Welcome, Guest!

Obama made Twitter angry, but not me!

The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced this morning that President Barack Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. He is the third president to win the prize while in office, and the only one to receive it in his first year on the job.

Immediately after the announcement, Twitter, the popular social networking site, was buzzing with comments.

The few positive tweets said things like, "Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama for his extraordinary efforts strengthening international diplomacy & cooperation! YES!," but the majority of the responses were things like, "I voted for him, but sadly the Nobel Peace Prize is no longer what it stands for." According to one survey, 69 percent of the responses were negative.

What I don't get is why so many people seem to be personally blaming Obama, when, unlike others, he did no lobbying for the award and in no way asked for it. In fact, he said he was "humbled" to be included among those who have received the award.

I personally believe that the Peace Prize has been improperly awarded to many people, and that there are worse people who could have received it.

Obama actually did some great things to encourage peace worldwide. He has worked toward nuclear nonproliferation, adding several countries to those currently part of the treaty. He has also worked to end the two wars that the U.S. is currently fighting, without compromising their stability. In a few years, he could have many more accomplishments.

I think he deserves it, but it may have been a bit prematurely awarded. Regardess of what you think, you can't be angry about what he is doing with the $1.4 million he was given as part of the award. He announced that he plans to donate it to an undisclosed charity, and I think that there is no better way to use the money.




Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Chris Yoder's picture

Who else?

If someone's going to criticize Obama's winning of the award, they have to think: "Who deserves this award more?" I can't think of anyone else who has done more to promote peace in the world recently, but I'm obviously not thinking of every deserving candidate.

Will Fernandez's picture

A Tremendous Blunder

I (like most people at our school) was a big Obama supporter and have talked about him constantly after having met him two years ago. But this award is probably the most ridiculous thing that could have happened. You should not get an award for a promise, because as we all know politicians have no problem breaking those promises. It is not Obama's fault but is a blunder on the committee and the world to think that he has made a big change. Sure we have improved relations in some countries but honestly that would have happened no matter what name took office, as long as it was not Bush or Cheney.

A great story was published in Time by Nancy Gibbs that not only points out the extreme premature action of the committee, but also give an example of the other candidates including Greg Mortenson,

"Nominated for the prize by some members of Congress, whom the bookies gave 20-to-1 odds of winning. Son of a missionary, a former Army medic and mountaineer, he has made it his mission to build schools for girls in places where opium dealers and tribal warlords kill people for trying. His Central Asia Institute has built more than 130 schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan — a mission which has, along the way, inspired millions of people to view the protection and education of girls as a key to peace and prosperity and progress."

Much more important than the promises made by Obama.

Oh and by the way, the nominations for the Nobel Prize closed on February 1st, Obama had only been in office for 13 days.

I agree that Obama doesn't

I agree that Obama doesn't deserve the negative criticism, but he was nominated a couple of weeks after his election aka before he was the president. This means that other than being elected he had done nothing. Should the Nobel Peace Prize be awarded for being elected to a position? His critics also have to accept that a president doesn't have absolute power. His pwer is actually quite limited and circumscribed. I just don't think he deserved it this time around, maybe in a year or two.

I think that what it comes

I think that what it comes down to is that thus far, Obama has been little different than Bush in his presidency, after all, he sent thousands of troops into Afghanistan, how can he possibly be deserving of a peace prize? Oh yeah, he also threatens Pakistan and and Iran. I think that because Obama is in the limelight, and as good of a person that he may be, he has done little to deserve this award. Even though we may not know who these other deserving candidates are, I am sure there are people who are just as deserving if not more deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize than Barack Obama.