My ignorance and assumptions are showing. I had the naive belief that the prize expressed an objective measure of “peacefulness.” I didn’t bother to learn the history before judging the judgment.

SCOTT HORTON: What was the Nobel Committee recognizing by giving the award to Carl von Ossietzky, a man reviled by his fellow countrymen, accused and convicted of an act of treason? He sounded a clarion call about the rise of Nazism and the resurgence of German militarism, and he committed his life to their exposure. He tried to awaken the world to the threat they presented and nothing contributed more to the cause of world peace at this time than his wake-up call. In fact, at this time, leaders in Whitehall and in the Washington saw Ossietzky and his associates as part of a hysterical fringe who were overstating the dangers of “Herr Hitler” and his movement. Seventy years later, however, the wisdom of the judgment of the Nobel Committee shines through.

…So, the award to Obama is necessarily to some extent an expression of confidence in him as a politician. But this award clearly is focused on his ability to shift the course of international dialogue relating to peace. Many of Obama’s domestic critics are so absorbed with the debates over health care and other internal issues that they fail to understand the shift that Obama has already brought about on the international stage through a handful of steps. He extended a hand to the Islamic world in a striking speech delivered in Cairo. He revived flagging European confidence in the Atlantic Alliance (in which, by no coincidence, Norway has long been a stout-hearted member) by moving away from American unilateralism and back to a policy of closer coordination with traditional allies. He removed a key irritant from Russian relations with the west by pulling back a missile defense plan focusing on Poland and the Czech Republic and putting in its place one more genuinely attuned to the purposes that Bush articulated: defense against a missile threat from Iran. Finally, he has once again moved efforts to control the nuclear arsenal to the top of the agenda. These developments have been all but ignored in the United States,…”

http://harpers.org/archive/2009/10/hbc-90005893

Including by yours truly. My personal preference would be to see laureates like the people suggested by John Watts, as they clearly operate out from under the shadow of war crimes. But I’ve come to see merits of awarding it to Obama.

Obama’s award is not in the same category as Kissinger and Haber. It was a political play by the committee, and how one feels about it will mirror how one feels about how issues are unfolding under the Obama administration. I personally don’t advocate the committee choose one person or another. That’s their job, their award. Nice brand, if you can get it.

Glenn Greenwald reported on the DNC’s apparent adoption of Rovian methods, tarring all and sundry with the “terrorist” lable for criticizing the award. I expected to see some of that vitriol here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GLENN GREENWALD: What’s particularly bothersome about yesterday’s attacks is the premise that it’s improper, unpatriotic and even Terrorist-mimicking to do anything but cheer — have a “national celebration” — when Obama is awarded the Nobel Prize. Whether Obama is actually pursuing policies of peace happens to be an extremely legitimate topic of debate. The same is true for whether he’s done anything meaningful yet to merit the award. Numerous liberals in good standing objected to Obama’s award — from Ezra Klein (“It is undeserved. It is a bit ridiculous”) to The Nation’s Richard Kim (“I woke up, read the New York Times website and thought I had come to the Onion instead . . . Obama doesn’t deserve the prize, yet”) to Naomi Klein (“disappointing, cheapening of the Nobel Prize”). While there are arguments to make in his favor — I even made some myself yesterday in the first two paragraphs of what I wrote — there is something unquestionably bizarre about awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to a leader who did not merely “inherit,” but is advocating, actively prosecuting and escalating, a major war that is killing large numbers of civilians with no plans to stop, while at the same time building prisons to house people who will have no due process.

Unquestionably, those are and must be legitimate topics of debate. Some smart people yesterday made some reasonable arguments for Obama’s Prize. But to insist that it’s the patriotic obligation of every American to stand and cheer — and that those who don’t are “casting their lot with the Terrorists” — is creepy and repugnant. It’s also a very dangerous game to play.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/10/prize_reaction/index.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Is this the MO of Obama, the DNC, both together?

Wei Jingsheng, who spent 17 years in Chinese prisons for urging reforms of China’s communist system. — not as worthy as Barack Hussein Obama. (Not to mention the symbolic value of awarding a Chinese dissident on the 20th Anniversary of the Tianenmen Square Massacre.)

Greg Mortenson, founder of the Central Asia Institute has built nearly 80 schools, especially for girls, in remote areas of northern Pakistan and Afghanistan over the past 15 years – not as worthy as Barack Hussein Obama.

Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad, a philosophy professor in Jordan who risks his life by advocating interfaith dialogue between Jews and Muslims, also not as worthy as Barack Hussein Obama.

Afghan human rights activist Sima Samar. She currently leads the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and serves as the U.N. special envoy to Darfur and is apparently also not as worthy as Barack Hussein Obama.