This morning the president and his wife woke up to a Swedish surprise. It was not the 3:00 a.m. call that everyone dreaded rather a 6:00 a.m. call no one saw coming. Obama won the Peace Prize for 2009–who knew?
I rushed up to a colleague and told him if I did not have to be at work so early today I could have blogged Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize first. He looked at me stunned, I was unsure if he had not heard because he looked so puzzled. I must have assumed because he was black that he had voted for and/or was pro-Obama. I was wrong. He whispered: “For what? I didn’t vote for the guy!" I had no way of knowing if his reaction was from the right, center, left or uniformed wing. An hour later on the radio Sean Hannity sang out the same two words “for what?”
As for my own reaction I spoke aloud a single word. The same word I said when at the beginning of the school year we were told, in an imprompto meeting — that our beloved assistant principal was not sick, as we thought, but had died that morning: “What!?” The Swedish audience who got the news first also gasped in shock. I knew that the Right would have a s*(& fit when they got the news. But I did not think that liberals too would be surprised at this prize. The radio heads are talking it up as a prize for destroying the country and making it fit for communists and socialists around the world to inhabit. You can see where Sarah Palin gets her sense of humor. The Right response clears the low bar for conservatives, liberals, and Republicans alike.
Honestly, I think that we are all confused and shocked. But conservatives just don’t know when to cheer and when to cry. They cheered when Obama helped the country lose Chicago’s Olympic bid and now have cried “foul” when Obama without any effort except for showing up wins the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009. I don’t get it; it was clear as dry paint. He won it because he earned it, or will earn it. It was an obvious vote of confidence.
Vote of confidence
Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee said their choice could be seen as an early vote of confidence in Obama intended to build global support for his policies. They lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change. msnbc
Votes aside, I thought that by reading the Nobel selection process that it would settle the argument for me. It was not illuminating either. The folks in Sweden start with letters that invite nominees in September and in October (13 months later) the one is chosen and notified. The famous awards ceremony is in December. By that timeline, there was plenty of time to watch Obama go from candidate to President and on the many jaunts around the world propagating peaceful waves wherever he went. But the candidates would have been chosen after Obama was president for only ten days. It took God seven days to create the world. There was no Nobel Prize for the Wright Brothers, because inventions are not discoveries in science and therefore not rewarded with a Nobel Prize. The impetus behind the Nobel Peace Prize would be the life’s work of a person. Obama still has a long way to go just in his presidency let alone his whole life lay in front of him.
When I created the feature "Bling it on!" I did not dream that Barack Hussein Obama would bring IT home — the mother of all bling. but he has. So, either President Obama has much to live up to or the Nobel committee got it wrong. And a group of Europeans have thumbed their noses at the world— too soon? Too bad!