Some simple truths about why Obama won a Nobel

Posted by: ST on October 14, 2009 at 3:05 pm

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.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

10 Responses to “Some simple truths about why Obama won a Nobel”


  1. My first thought on reading Micheal Cohen’s piece was: Oh, so that explains why the whole world is dumping the Dollar as the primary reserve currency” Liberals are such incredible dingbats. See my thoughts on the NPP Committee’s decision to Award Obama here

  2. Sean says:

    Nice. Thanks for the analysis.

  3. Dennis D says:

    No man of honesty and integrity could accept such an award with the knowledge that he did not earn it . This casts a deeper cloud over Obama’s values.

  4. Brontefan says:

    Considering the overall mood of the Nobel Prize commission, which is basically anti-American, the reason Obama received the prize is because he is essentially anti-American. He does not celebrate any of the characteristics of American, which includes the ability to achieve by hard work and dedication. He does not celebrate the progress we have made or our overall capitalistic society. Instead he comes with an olive branch to the Muslim world –his first official presidential act was to give a television interview to them–and apologizes for Americans all around the world. He does not celebrate the American dream, instead he wants to destroy it by initiating socialize medicine, weakening the military, and controlling progress through Wall Street, the banking industry, and education. Today the primary focus of American education is socialism and how good it will be for this country. Ask anyone who has been to college lately! Obama celebrates the hand-outs to those who don’t achieve and punishes those who do. Yes, he is the perfect candidate for the prize; now you know what Europe thinks of us. The only difference here is that I don’t want to cater to those who we saved in WWII and now hate us.

  5. Ron Russell says:

    Conservatives no not win the Nobel. Conservatives are not liked by those in charge of the Nobel awards. Conservative values are scorned in Sweden. Bush didn’t win–no surprise. Obama wins–no surprise. The difference—Berkely, CA vs Jackson, MS—get the picture.

  6. Carlos says:

    In using Yassar Arafat and Jimmuh, one can only come to one conclusion: that if you supply the needs to kill not only “evil Jooos” but your own people (Arafat), or if you turn tail and run from any just cause (Jimmuh), you’re eligible for the phony “Peace” prize. Alfred must be spinning in his grave!

    No wonder Blair and Bush didn’t even receive serious consideration – heck, they just went ahead and took out an ominous, beastial regime in Afghanistan and set in motion the overthrow and capture of a biological-weapons using dictator that had already murdered tens of thousands of his own countrymen.

    Go figure.

  7. Tom TB says:

    Our two other sitting Presidents who received this award had been in office for over 5 years, and had accomplished things; T. Roosevelt for brokering a peace treaty between Russia and Japan, and W.Wilson with his 14 points that led to the League of Nations. Barry Obama was nominated 12 days after he took the oath of office. If he had any sense of honor, he would refuse it, and say that there absolutely must be someone on the list deserving of this great historical award!

  8. Jo says:

    The award has become a joke and Obama is a joke so I think it’s only fitting.

  9. Carlos says:

    Wait till next year when Duh-1 gets the Nobel prize for Literature.

    At least he would have done SOMETHING to get it. Not earn it, understand, but at least something to get it. You might say that would be a make-up call for the committee because they blew it so badly with this one.

  10. Severian says:

    Next, Obama gets the Nobel prize in physics/astronomy for his work in demonstrating that the earth doesn’t revolve around the sun, it revolves around him. Heliocentrism is so racist.