If I understand your comment correctly, you are stating that the accomplishments which President Obama is being celebrated for were based on his work for anti-nuclear proliferation work, which he started as a Senator.

As a Senator, Obama only introduced 11 resolutions to the Senate floor. He introduced only 59 bills, of which only two were placed on the Senate calendar.

Of the eleven resolutions, only one could be loosely argued that had anything to do with peace efforts. It was on condemning violence in Zimbabwe. By the way this resolution had 7 cosponsors and never even got to a vote.

His only Senatorial action related partially towards nuclear weapons was Senate bill 1977, which he along with 4 cosponsors presented, involving the US taking a role in combating nuclear terrorism and arsenal reduction. This has languished in committee and has never emerged for air, not even after being president and being able to have some clout with a Democratic congress.

So, as a Senator he never once unilaterally initiated any significant legislation regarding nuclear anti-proliferation. His senatorial record was rather light, but that I understand, as politically you do not want heavy partisan baggage if one intends to run for national office. This I do not criticize.

But equally, this same light legislative record cannot be now used to attempt to rationalize his merits for the Nobel peace prize. Come on @bbrookin.

Bluntly put, Obama never unilaterally sponsored any resolution or bill related to nuclear proliferation, mush less exert any effort to advance such legislation onto the Senate calendar.

See, I do not forget he was a Senator before being President. I remember that full well. That is why I remember what he did and most importantly DID NOT do as a Senator.

As Ronald Reagan said, "trust, but verify," please check his legislative record for yourselves.

The facts I cited referred to the 110th Congress due to the time frame, but go back into the 109th Congress if you wish, there is even less there.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billsearch.xpd?PostFormID=billsearch&session=109&q=&sponsor=400629&cosponsor=&chamber=&status=&sort=

Your question asked for my opinion, sir - how I felt about the issue. I gave you my opinion as to why the President should not turn down the award, not a dissertation of reasons he merited the award. I stand by my opinion, which is apparently the opinion of the Nobel Committee who "praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease U.S. conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen its role in combating climate change."(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091009/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nobel_peace)
Please remember that Mahalo Answers treats everyone with respect, despite differences in point of view. It is not a pugnacious forum. In the future, you might get better results if you rephrased your question to indicate you wanted proof, not opinion.

Please do not take offense.

I did not intend in anyway to belittle your opinion. I only felt it fair, since you incorporated what could have been interpreted as a fact by the passive reader regarding his Senatorial record, that I should include the detail and the source by which they could verify it, and I suppose by virtue of that refute that little detail, but by no means your opinion.

Please accept my apology if at anytime I made you feel that I was being aggressive against your opinion. I assure you, I was not.

I hope that you do not view me with ill regard. My hero is a blue furred muppet with googly eyes, I assure you that I am not a harsh person.

Apology accepted.
To clarify my reference regarding Obama's Senate record:

"Today, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) announced that a provision authored by Obama and Senator Hagel (R-NE) in the Senate and advanced by Schiff in the House requiring a comprehensive nuclear threat reduction plan passed as part of the omnibus appropriations bill. " (from U.S. Federal news service, December 19, 2007.)

Perhaps this gave the Nobel Committee reason for hope? I don't know - I'm not a member. It's still an honor for the U.S., in my opinion. The proper response for sincere praise is always "Thank you."

Well put. Although, I don't feel he should have received the award "yet", I do feel that the situation was out of his hands since he did not ask for the honor. When it comes down to it, his reaction was stellar. It would have been an extreme insult to the global community to have refused the reward.

I don't know why the Nobel Committee chose him either, though as they said in their defense in the past sometimes the award has been given to people who've started an important process, rather than reached the end successfully.

Given that they awarded it, I think Barack Obama handled it about as well as it could be handled, which is to express his surprise and the fact that he didn't feel deserving of it, but to accept as graciously as he could.

To say: "No, I decline because I don't deserve it" would have been almost as arrogant as suggesting that it was well deserved. Arrogant because it would be saying to the Nobel Committee "I know your work better than you do, and what's more I don't care about making you look foolish in front of the whole world".

That would be especially inappropriate given that the biggest criticism the world has of the US is that it thinks it always knows best, and never listens to or respects anyone else's views.

Actually part of why the Nobel Committee sees Barack Obama's impact on international relations as important is the very attitude he showed here, namely: "That's not the way I see things, but I respect your views and accept there may be other valid ways of looking at things than I do."

I listen to lots of international radio (I hammered out a little app to log the IPs of internet radio stations that broadcast in english, and what the times are for their news broadcasts, and then, by adjusting for time zones, it basically jumps around the planet listening to the regional local news broadcasts) and a pattern has emerged:

People from the US think that the Peace Prize is to be awarded like the Nobel Prize for sciences, which definitely is for a work that's been *done*. They're not seeing how the Peace Prize can be granted for a *work in progress*.

Everyone else seems to know that the Peace Prize is not from the same committee as the Nobel Prize for sciences (not even from the same country... The Nobel Prize for sciences is from Sweden, and the Peace Prize is from Norway), even the Canadians, who normally reflect American attitudes more-or-less, seem to have a better grip on the concept.

What's funny is the editorial-spot talk coming from the international stations specifically *noting* to their listeners that it's curious the way only Americans don't know that the Peace Prize can be for a process and not a product.

People need to understand that peace is a process, not a product. If it was a product, you could win a war, establish peace, and there would never be war again, but that's not how it works, is it?

Maintaining peace is a process, so the Peace Prize can be awarded to someone who's dong good work on the *process*, and for that, Obama is working extremely hard and has earned it.

Somewhere like Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan or Somalia? Commander in chief of an army that kills every day receives an award for peace. Ironic.

This quote from an AP story regarding a possible troop surge in Afghanistan would be comical if it were not over such serious an issue:

"Obama, who was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize early Friday, is considering a request from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the war's top commander, for as many as 40,000 additional troops. There are 65,000 U.S. forces in Afghanistan now."

Everyone keeps missing the point of why he got the Peace Prize. It's not not for what he's done. It's for what the award granters are trying to give him a vote of confidense to try and give him some support to get done.

They understand the dilema he's found himself in.

Obama honestly believes that the way to solve most problems is to get people to sit down at a table and discuss things rationally, and so he's been doing everything he can to try and get opposing forces and interest groups to do that, but it's starting to look like he's being bitten by something he himselve just never groked the extent and degree of, which is that the opposing side *want* things to stay irrational, because it's only by hollering demands at each other in irrational terms that lobbyists can sneak in pork, and arms dealers can always find ways to make a sale no matter who it's too.

Obama is correct to think that the way to solve the problems is to get the opposite sides to talk rationally to each other, but those opposing sides can see what he's trying to do, and so now they're ganging up on him in order to try and shut him up or stop him, because if he actually does force those kids to sit down on opposite sides of the table and talk to each other in rational terms, they'll sulk, and have to actually reach some agreements that make sense, which blows the whole game that it is to both of them.

The Peace Prize awarders are aware of that, and have said in so many words that the granting of this award is not for what he's done, but for what they think he *could* do if he were to achieve his goals, and that right now he needs all the help he can get, and the awards committee knows they've got serious clout (look how much time people are spending talking about what they did just on this forum) and they've basically said that what this award is is an *endorsement* for what they see him *trying* to do, which is *trying* to force opponents who *say* they're fighting for peace and reconciliation, but *really* have no intention of reconciling, because they want the status quo of war and capital hill lobbying between them to continue, because they're co-dependants, and that's how they co-dependantly make their profits, and as far as they're concerned Obama is messing it up for *both* of them, so they're refusing to look at each other... they just sit accross accross the table and refuse to talk while Obama tries to get them to talk.

There are some observers in Washington who are starting to say that some people are getting concerned, because everyone in Washington is so accustomed to politicians statements just being white-wash for whatever special interest they're actually working for that it stumps the whole system if you get someone who's actually principaled and has been saying what he means, and they're starting to wonder if Obama really knows what he's doing, because the last time there was a President who tried to be principaled and mean what he said, and get opposing sides to stop their co-dependant fighting kept going with statements of irrationality, those opposing sides ganged up and assasinated that President.

In any case, people need to re-read the pronouncements by the Peace Prize committee, and you'll see they're not giving it to him for what's been *done*. They say it right there that it's because he *needs* some endorsing from people with credibility and clout who really do want Peace that they're pre-awarding the Peace Prize as an endorsement in hope that he can somehow get those combatant special interest groups to stop fighting in eternal co-dependance masked by smoke shields of irrationality dressed up as "passion and conviction in a belief".

You can schmeel *any* irrational position in order to mask the underlying service to special interest by saying that your irrational position is by virtue of a "strong conviction and belief".

Here is an excerpt from Alfred Nobel's will, in which he stipulates how the prize is to be given:

"to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

It is not to be given out as a sign of encouragement for what is intentioned or for the potential one has, it is for specific achievements.

Now, if one wishes to simply set all of that aside, then simply state it as such; but do not name it the Nobel Peace Prize, announce a new category, the Nobel Prize for Greatest Potential or Best Intention.

http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/short_testamente.html

Yeah, maybe... the problem is... they established a precident by doing it before, so from the point of view of most everyone in Europe, they totally get it.

Can you vote for me anyway? I plan to win it nest year!

It is usually the least appropriate to decline something when you have asked for it, but not inappropriate if you had not asked for it.

Regardless of this, you are correct that there will always be proponents as well as naysayers. When folks complained about Carter and Gore winning the prize I did not join in that chorus, as I said, the rationale seemed clear for issuing them the award.

Also, as you said, as President of the United States, he is representing the American people, and as such, I believe his acceptance also carries an implication, especially if it was awarded on an open ended basis, i.e. future accomplishment. Should Americans then not be concerned that they will have a President that will be striving to fulfill or justify his awarding.

Just things to think about I suppose.

Well said, thank you!

Agreed! :D Vote for me to win the award next year!