Friday, October 09, 2009



Hot Air is on a roll about it.

First Things also chimes in.

Creative Minority poses a question:

The best part is that the votes were in by February 1st which means that Obama was in office less than two weeks when the Peace Prize committee voted... Essentially, the only thing President Obama did before the vote was taken was he reversed the Mexico City Policy to allow the funding to international abortion providers. Does funding the death of babies from other countries merit a peace prize?

Power Line lists previous notorious winners of "The Prize".

And I just shake my head and laugh at the absurdity.

1 comment:

Dim Bulb said...

I loved the editorial commentary from the Times of London, especially this part:

Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.

Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.

I also loved what a commenter said at the National Review Online. He noted that Obama has achieved one act of peace making: the reconciliation between a black professor and a white cop.