I found Gore winning the prize as more absurd.

gandhi wasn’t deemed worthy of the peace prize.

you’re saying that the peace prize itself ISN’T a joke? That Kissinger, Carter and Gore really exemplify the ‘progressive’ values you identified? When did a) knowingly perpetuate war, b) fail to accomplish anything your big mouth set in motion, c) pushing climatologists off center stage and into the exits qualify as expressions of those values? The “not bush” argument for giving Obama the nobel is more succinctly stated than in your rant: “he is not bush.” It’s not a great argument but it’s still made in regards to a meaningless trophy–not an issue but certainly an annoyance.

Kudos for setting the record straight. If she’s a good person and the criticism actually reaches her ears, then I hope she’ll have the good grace to acknowledge it.

Here’s the why of it, since some of you really do seem to have trouble getting it.

1. Bush was a moron who did real damage to “world peace” as a goal, and to our country’s reputation abroad (and fuck the Republicans who seem to think that foreign opinion is irrelevant. The reasons are obvious for why international support for our nation’s policies are important. If you can’t think of any, you’re stupid.

2. Obama could literally do nothing but talk, and people feel better about him (in Oslo, and presumably in most other countries that have even a remotely favorable opinion of the US).

3. People in this and other countries have high hopes for him and his presidency. To the naysayers, please…shut the hell up. As my very southern godmother used to say, either help or get out of the kitchen. You’re not accomplishing anything much except look like an idiot when you keep forcing questions about the president’s legitimacy as a leader (yeah, I’m talking to you, birthers, tea-baggers (ha! only a true fucktard willingly wears THAT appellation), and healthcare reform obstructionists.

One last thing, which makes me practically quiver with rage. All these pukes saying stuff like “why does Obama deserve an award that went to Gandhi and Mother Theresa” are totally missing a pretty huge point. That point is that all those people who’ve won the Nobel Peace Prize espouse liberal values: tolerance, multiculturalism, the greatest good for the greatest number, financial opportunities for the lower social rungs, civil rights for all, a deep belief in fair play and level playing fields, environmental justice and awareness…what many of us nowadays call “progressive” values.

I mean, what exactly are these mealy-mouthed hypocrites really saying? That they actually love Al Gore, the IPCC, Anwar Sadat, Menachem Begin, George C. Marshall and the United Nations? That Obama does not belong in such heady company? Suddenly it’s all praise for this rabble of foreigners and wimps who espouse peace and doing good for the common man?

It makes me want to say mean things and ruin my chances at winning it myself one day.

Hey, quit insinuating he’s the antichrist.

I don’t know – maybe by not escalating the war in Afghanstian and now Pakistan? Or at least not mentioning soldiers int he acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize.

There are many ways. I’ll give the administration credit for at least making a nod towards delaying an IMF loan to the government of Sri Lanka, but even that didn’t seem to be a very high priority – but I don’t know how firmly entrenched the opposition of the governments of China and Russia were in the Security Council but I would be curious to know what kind of political capital it would have taken to get that delay until a plausible and humane solution was found in Sri Lanka. and of course you could argue that they didn’t have to go through the UN since they don’t for a lot of other stuff.