You've got a better chance of winning the economic one in my opinion. They seem to want to give it to anyone who remains conventional.

You won't get it: you are duplicitous enough nor do you compromise your views sufficiently. And you need to sweet talk better.

Once Tom Coburn cuts you phoney political scientists off from your CNN and MSNBC fact gathering, you'll never get a shot at the Nobel! Muah ha ha ha ha

Ok, back to reality...

You may have too idealized an opinion of the Nobel Prize and its meaning. Their job is to lean into the wind

They're batting .500 already in their awards to sitting American presidents -- Roosevelt was controversial but actually did achieve 'lasting' regional peace. (Just don't ask the Koreans or the Colombians about his 'peacemaking'). Wilson's lasting achievements are far more questionable.

And let's not get to Kissinger and Le Duc Tho.

Given this record, Obama faces a fairly low bar.

I would venture that Obama is generally seen as more trustworthy, rational, and predictable than the previous administration, or the McCain Administration that might have been. This is probably in itself a very significant contribution to world peace, if only in reassuring skittish Chinese, Russians, or -- for that matter -- Iranians that U.S. intentions can be predicted.

(And yes, intentions are of importance if you can't balance capabilities.).

I didn't happen that way though.

As for my reaction, I'm with the many voices who think this is way, way premature, and also with those who think Obama's best move would have been to decline it gracefully, while saying he would be thrilled to be deserving at some later date. The Nobel Committee might have felt dissed, but I believe he would have won enormous plaudits elsewhere.

Exactly. It would have also been an affirmation of his desire to work seriously on several peace-related projects.

Fat chance of him declining it, though. Ever since becoming President, Obama has never met a major speaking venue that he doesn't like - and the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony is just his type of place (friendly crowd, chance to make dramatic-sounding speech, etc).

Why is the prize ill-chosen? Because we all know that "talk is cheap," and thus far that's mostly what
Obama has offered us. We're getting out of Iraq (though maybe not completely), but George W. Bush had already signed the deal to do that before he left office. We aren't getting out of Afghanistan any time soon. He's given a great speech in Cairo, and then whiffed on the follow-through towards Israeli-Palestinian peace. He's given another nice speech about eliminating nuclear weapons, but anyone want to bet on whether he delivers on that particular pledge? America's image is improved (except in the Middle East), but I can't think of a single conflict that has gone away (or even significantly decreased) since he took office. So far, his main tangible foreign policy achievment was getting the Olympic Committee to unite in rejecting Chicago's bid and awarding the games to Rio.

All good points. Certainly, it's ridiculous that Obama gets the Nobel Prize for simply talking about this stuff, whereas Clinton - who spent political capital and time making two major pushes for Israeli-Palestinian peace, as well as other efforts like improving relations with Jordan and Syria - does not.

To be honest, I think they'd be better off not giving off the Nobel Peace Prize as an annual prize. That would allow them to give it to actual peacemakers.

it will make a mockery of the whole idea of the prize.

It's hard to see how the Prize could become even more of a mockery than it already has become. They gave it to Arafat and Rabin in 1994, remember? We all saw how that turned out.

In any case, I'm putting in for next year's peace prize now. I haven't done anything to deserve it either, but what if I promise to write a great book or article in the next twelve months that will substantially contribute to world peace? In fact, I'll even promise to retool as an economist and put a mathematical model in the piece, so that I'm eligible for two prizes, not one. OK?

Stop hogging the Prizes, Stephen. Your double-victory will distract from the Literature Prize for the Great American Novel I'm hoping to write real soon (after I get the Prize, of course).

The idea that President Obama was even nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize should be looked at as an abomination. As Dr. Walt so amply puts it, his optimistic declarations to the Arab world (i.e. resolving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, taming Iran's nuclear capability, withdrawing from Iraq, and eliminating nuclear proliferation) have gotten misplaced somewhere in the halls of the White House. Instead, what Americans and the rest of the world have to look forward to is a revamped war-strategy in Afghanistan and a regression back to the same old "we work for Israel" adage. Certainly, Mr. Obama understands that caving-in to the Israelis on settlement construction and de-classifying the Goldstone Report will not win friends in the Arab world?

Of course, this is all old news. Marc Lynch, Stephen Walt, David Rothkopt and the entire Foreign Policy team has done their homework on the matter. What is a relatively new phenomenon is the dangerous precedent being sent to potential winners of the award. The days of a statesman, activist, or diplomat actually getting of the couch and achieving something are long gone.

Now, it appears that the distinguished (or once-distinguished) Nobel Prize is losing the same credibility that it hopes to instill in its recipients. So the committee says, 'we hope you accept this reward and push for Mideast peace. We hope that you work towards a comprehensive agreement with Iran. We hope you use this award to de-escalate the conflict in Iraq.' In short, we HOPE that you merit the Prize after the fact.

No wonder why people around the world- including the United States- are shaking their heads with disbelief.

http://depetris.wordpress.com

its interesting how similar all the realists argue, check this as an example

http://irknowledge.wordpress.com/

best

The out-of-the-blue Nobel peace prize for Obama says a great deal about those giving the honor and less about the honoree. It reflects more upon Europe than America. I interpret it as a sign of Europe's desperation. In a similar way, Obama's election itself signified the sheer desperation of the American electorate.

Obama is a smooth talker and a salesman. He has talked his way into the White House and onto the world's stage. This could not have happened except in the aftermath of the most frightfully dishonest, dangerous and ignorant U.S. Presidency in history. Obama and his handlers counted on the contrast to work wonders, and it did. But the shine is fading fast, and the facts are coming faster. Change was the mantra. It was all deliberately vague. Something for everybody. There was no substance. Now Team Obama is stuck in the White House with three wars on its hands, not counting the war over Palestine, which is the root of these conflicts.

I'm not certain the folks in Oslo and Stockholm and Europe buy Obama's act, but they surely hope there is something beyond his smile and endless talk when it comes to U.S. foreign policy. They are going to be gravely disappointed. Maybe they already are. That almost anything would be better than the horror of the Cheney-Bush co-Presidency is small consolation. Besides, it's not Obama the man who is important. He's simply carrying on what came before. He's a facade covering up the way things are.

Germanicus