Some simple truths about why Obama won a Nobel

In a silly piece in which he tries to prove that it’s Democrats who “love America more” now, Michael Cohen writes:

The greatest irony of the conservative response to the Nobel Committee’s honor is that it is a clear indication that there is a global thirsting for American leadership and engagement. Conservatives should be delighted by what is basically a European call for American leadership; yet the response has been to treat it as a mark of shame for Obama.

Sigh. Tom Maguire sets the record straight:

Mr. Cohen retreats from “global thirsting” to “basically a European call” within one paragraph. Given more space he might have arrived at the truth – the Nobel Peace Prize was a call by some European leftists for Obama to be more like them. They have no interest in American leadership – they want American followership on global warming, engagement over confrontation with our enemies, and a host of other issues. And they will probably get it.


I should also note that when both George W. Bush and Tony Blair were nominated for a Nobel Peace prize back in 2002, there were very few conservatives who cheered the idea – in fact, the only thing most of them loved about it was in knowing the fact that liberals, who consider even the very nomination for the worthless award such a badge of honor, had to be foaming at the mouth with rage over the possibility that “bloodthirsty warmongers” like Bush and Blair had been nominated for a prize that had previously been awarded to the likes of the peace-loving Yasser Arafat and foreign policy genius Jimmy Carter.

In fact, you know that Obama’s winning of the Nobel Peace Prize has to be bad when even his favorite Republican David Brooks denounced it as “sort of a joke” – a statement which, incidentally, is how a lot of us have felt the last year or so about David Brooks’ columns.

And the Nobel Prize in and of itself.

Comments are closed.