famousringo said:
Kasz216 said:
famousringo said:
I'm gonna perch on a fence and not decide for now. I do think that Obama has done enough for peace to deserve consideration, but he could do much, much more.
I will say that I find it strangely appropriate that he wasn't awarded the prize for what he has done so much as what it is hoped he will do.
I think right now Obama is taking US foreign policy in exactly the direction Europe and the global community wants: Leadership without unilateralism. This award has a lot to do with that change of tone. The world community likes having the US take a leadership role on problems—because frankly it's hard to get anything done without US support—but us non-superpowers also like to feel that our voices are being heard. This prize is a stamp of approval for the rebranding of the United States in the eyes of the world.
For whatever it's worth, here's what the President of Israel thinks of this:
“Very few leaders if at all were able to change the mood of the entire world in such a short while with such a profound impact. You provided the entire humanity with fresh hope, with intellectual determination, and a feeling that there is a lord in heaven and believers on earth.” Mr. Peres, who won the peace prize with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat in 1994 following the Oslo Accords, added: “Under your leadership, peace became a real and original agenda. And from Jerusalem, I am sure all the bells of engagement and understanding will ring again. You gave us a license to dream and act in a noble direction.”
Does a change in the mood and new hope for the future justify a peace prize? I'm really not sure.
|
Here's the thing. I think Hilary Clinton would of did that as well.
Pretty much anybody not George W Bush or seen as him would of did that.
It feels like George W Bush was such a disaster that the next guy gets an award just for not being him.
Since nothing he's done has reached a level of other Presidents not named George W Bush or like... James Buchanon or something.
|
I honestly don't think Clinton could have. The whole reason Obama beat Clinton was because he was capable of projecting a positive message of hope and change and making it sound genuine and inspirational. Clinton's attempts to be emotional and passionate just came across as contrived and disingenuous. Clinton just looked like a change from a Republican power elite family to a Democrat power elite family.
I don't think that any ol' schmuck could have repaired the reputation and respect that Bush Jr. cost the US so quickly and effortlessly as Obama has. It's not just his party and policies which did the trick, it's a combination of so many factors, including his oratory, his charisma, and yes, even his name and skin colour. His demeanor contrasts Bush's so starkly that he presents to the world a clean break from Bush's unilateralism and aggression...
|
Wow, that's a very deep statement. I approve this message. LOLz
