My husband just made a very good point after listening to Rachel Maddow's defense of President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize.
"The Nobel Peace Prize is an expectation and that is being acknowledged. Above and beyond that, the President is in a unique position because of these things:
1. His express desire to achieve world peace.
2. He occupies the most powerful office in the world.
3. He is a man of color which is relatable to the majority of the rest of the world
These facts put him in the unique position of getting closer to achieving world peace than anyone else in the world. On a relay team, the strongest runner always takes the anchor position even tho' he hasn't yet won the race. Giving Obama the Nobel Peace Prize acknowledges he is in the "anchor" position to achieve world peace."
No apology necessary.
11 comments:
Great post! Great explanation!
True, indeed.
I just hope he follows through. We're all waiting to see the 'change' he promised during the election with much anticipation. If anyone can do it, I think he can.
Anchor position. I like this analogy.
Outstanding, California Girl's husband!
Thanks for putting into words what many of us were thinking.
I think it's great that O got it. He is our best hope & would have gotten it at some itme ... Carter got it later on after his term.
At least he is out there and trying ...
(not that there weren't other choices ... I think he is the best one for this year)
Yes.
A friend of my husband's said:
"Only in America could people be 'ecstatic' that a major US city was not chosen to host the olympics, and 'angry' that their President was given a major world honor, the Nobel Peace prize."
Why is it that the only former Presidents that are out there doing good things for their fellow man are Democrats? Because they CARE about their fellow man. And Obama cares about what happens to people. The expectation and promise of his Presidency were the biggest reasons for the Peace Prize, but I think the rest of the world knows that he cares what happens to them.
An article in the Globe and Mail (of Canada) written by columnist Doug Saunders says this of Obama's peace prize..
"Mr. Obama's leadership in uniting all the world's powers around total nuclear disarmament, his ending the impasse between Russia and the West and his goal-driven engagement with Iran and the wider Muslim world have not yet borne fruit, but the Norwegian judges believe the nature of the world has been significantly altered for the better.
The Nobel Peace Prize is not a lifetime-achievement award. It tends to honour actions that change the way the world functions, the way countries engage or publics think about a conflict. They should be important, historic actions, but the prize does not wait for results.
Mr. Obama falls squarely into this tradition: He has changed the game. International relations no longer function the way they have for the past decade, and important new possibilities are now open. On the issues that matter – a nuclear-free world, an end to dangerous rogue states – the path is no longer blocked, and all the world's major powers act and vote together."
This may help some to see the award with a positive perspective.
Minka: thanks. I thought it was a nice follow up to the post from the day before. You'll have to read Deborah's comment on this post. I am always intrigued by the viewpoints of people outside the U.S.
Indy: I thought so too. When it comes to politics, my husband is very measured in his responses to things.
Baino: Today is a big Senate vote on health care reform. We'll see what happens...this is the Baucus (SP?) bill, w/o a public option which most of us don't want.
Gabrielle: do you like to be called "Gaby"? Anyway, it is a very good analogy.
Nancy: I'll thank the spousal unit. :)
JC: He is intelligent, articulate (hear that Dubya?), even-handed, and thoughtful. Thoughtful may be the key word. Not sure anyone can just jump in and solve anything at this point. The US has failed to take its time to consider the ramifications of things, e.g. TARP, Invasion of Iraq, WMD, etc. They are now haunting us. As citizens, it is our duty to nag the shit out of our representatives to do what WE want not what they think is politically expedient.
Ruth: That is a pretty sad statement, don't you agree?
Susan: Another good point. Pres. Carter was absolutely vilified during and after his first and only term. He has spent the remainder of his life helping the homeless via Habitat for Humanity. Never saw Reagan do that!
Deborah: THANK YOU for this! I incorporated into my next post.
California Girl:
Yes, ditto on your husband's analogy.
Gaby, Gabi,even "Gabrill" -- I answer to all. :)
Post a Comment