Put another way, their decision is an indirect slap in the face to President Obama himself. They're almost saying “obviously, you haven't done anything yet, but your country is such an utter disappointment to us, we're going to pat it on the head and reward it for electing you. Hope you don't mind us using you in this way.”

America is a GREAT country. We have brought peace and freedom to much of the world, and many of our presidents who have actually accomplished those things haven't been deemed worthy of the Nobel prize. We stormed Normandy, we didn't keep territory in Europe, we're fighting for freedom right now in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. And we're the same people who elected President Obama. So don't insult our intelligence like this.

You can see it in the President's face — he knows they're being ridiculous. The White House thought it was April Fool's Day, for crying out loud. This wouldn't be ridiculous at all in four or eight years. It really is 12 days into a presidency.

So I get your overall point and agree with it to some extent, but I don't think it's being anti-Obama to be offended by the Nobel committee's condescending attitude.

I look at it like this. How often do you (someone) negatively
criticize an umpire/referee for making a bad call against the other
team that wins the game for you? It's rare. We acknowledge it was a
bad call but say hey it happens sometimes and we move on happy the
call went our way. It's a positive reaction. On the other hand, It's
the other team that vehemently blast the decision because they feel
like the victims of the call. Many of the Obama responses feel like
those of the “other team” rather than our team. That is the part I
don't understand.

Angry reactions to the President? Absolutely not.

I just blogged about Thomas Friedman's editorial, but in keeping with my “blog ahead” plan, it won't appear until Tuesday. But his editorial today really encapsulates how I feel about the matter:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11fri…

Good points here. Still no justification for being negative and
obnoxious. Good points for disagreeing though. It's simply a matter
of degree of response and too many have gone too far.

Thanks

That being said, I'll disagree a bit with your above conclusion. Some (the aforementioned petty and small-minded among us) indeed lament this award out of self-preservation. I would argue, however, that far more have questions not specifically with the award, but with a broader issue, one of which this award is a wonderful example.

The concern many of us have is one of fairness. Obama, since he burst on the scene at the Democratic convention, has had perhaps the easiest ride of any figure I can recall in my life. It seems (and I truly say this with no attempt at hyperbole) that he has been appointed savior of the world! The media is in love with him, pop-culture is in love with him, the rest of the world is in love with him. So what's the harm in this? Am I jealous? Am I the petty one? I don't believe so. I think the harm lies in the byproduct, specifically, an absence of meaningful debate. That's dangerous.

Examples? They are many. One cannot argue that Sarah Palin has been vilified. Her name, (like Bush's, Quayle's, etc.) has become a virtual punch line. I won't argue that she was the right candidate, I actually don't think she was. However, I could not help but notice the disparity in how the media covered her vs. how they covered Obama during … Read Morethe race. “Is she ready?” “Is she qualified?” Questions like these were asked constantly by every media outlet. Perfectly legitimate questions of course. However, they weren't asked with nearly the same frequency of Obama. Palin, at least, has been in charge of something. She ran a state. She was an executive. Obama, conversely, had never been in charge of so much as a lemonade stand. He was a junior senator who had yet to even finish his first term. Yet he got a free pass. Was he a better candidate than Palin? Perhaps. But that isn't the point. The point is that, as the presidential front-runner, he should have been given at least the same media scrutiny as Palin received. I don't think that anyone can honest argue that he did. Another example (albeit an insignificant one) was a recent SNL skit. Usually (and predictably), SNL only makes fun of Obama by referencing the media's devotion to him, perfectly illustrating my point (see the portrayal of Chris Matthews fawning over him while wearing an “Obama” sweatshirt). This time, however, they made fun of his job performance. Good. It's part of the job, and a great part of the show. I dare say that Bush endured his fair share of it. Unbelievably, however, the next day CNN had an entire segment debating (and mostly contradicting) SNL and defending Obama's record. You didn't see too many shows like that during the last president's tenure, did you?

The examples of this cult of personality are everywhere, but this Nobel Prize is the most telling example. I don't see how anyone can argue that it was merited or deserved. The nominations took place mere days after he took office, and the voting soon after. He hadn't had time to do much more than move his furniture into the White House! I think anyone who argues that he was given this prize based on his accomplishments is being disingenuous. He didn't earn this. Perhaps someday he will. I truly hope that he does.

I'll give one last example of the double standard, and one that is especially germane to this discussion. Ronald Reagan almost single-handedly ended the cold war. He ignored the outrage of the panderers and politically correct, and called the Soviet Union what it was: The Evil Empire. He forced them to spend themselves into bankruptcy, collapsing their system. He forced Gorbachev to (extremely reluctantly) recognize the injustice of Communism (“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall”), and in the process, freed millions from the horrors of the Soviet Union. Jim, like you, I have traveled extensively through many formerly Soviet and Communist countries and seen the results of their system. It truly was evil. Reagan didn't do what was popular. He did what was right. And he rid the world of the very real threat of nuclear holocaust. That did more for world peace than perhaps any accomplishment in history. But I'd bet my last dollar that the name “Reagan” wasn't thrown around the table in Oslo too many times!

Again, who cares? It's just an award. But I get very scared of what I see taking place. I don't like it when one man has too much power. He has the media. He has pop-culture. He has the Senate. He has the House. He is getting the Courts. and obviously, he has world opinion. I hope he uses this power the right way.
There are, however, becoming fewer and fewer ways for those who disagree to exert any influence. That's extremely dangerous. If you express a different opinion, you're vilified. You're ridiculed. You're censured in Congress. Perhaps most scary, you're labeled a racist (thank you Jimmy Carter).

This country needs honest and open debate. It needs dialogue. It needs discourse. It needs options.

It does not need a king, even if the entire world is attempting to crown one.

There will always be people who are hyper-partisan responding negatively about the President himself. But when I look at some of the other nominees, like the former Army Medic who has built 130 schools for girls in Afghanistan and Pakistan, spreading hope for peace and freedom through education, it does make me react negatively, not against President Obama, but against the Nobel committee.

They are the ones who are being hyper-political and destroying the prestige of a great prize. The President had been in office for 12 days when the nomination period closed. 12 days. Woodrow Wilson won this award for founding the League of Nations, for crying out loud. Accomplishments take YEARS, which is why no head of state in the entire world has ever won the Nobel after 12 days in office.

So I can't quite agree with you that disagreeing with the Nobel committee equals criticism of President Obama. It's fairly clear he didn't campaign for this award, and it's not his fault the committee decided to politicize it in such a transparently condescending way toward our country.

Put another way, their decision is an indirect slap in the face to President Obama himself. They're almost saying “obviously, you haven't done anything yet, but your country is such an utter disappointment to us, we're going to pat it on the head and reward it for electing you. Hope you don't mind us using you in this way.”

America is a GREAT country. We have brought peace and freedom to much of the world, and many of our presidents who have actually accomplished those things haven't been deemed worthy of the Nobel prize. We stormed Normandy, we didn't keep territory in Europe, we're fighting for freedom right now in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. And we're the same people who elected President Obama. So don't insult our intelligence like this.

You can see it in the President's face — he knows they're being ridiculous. The White House thought it was April Fool's Day, for crying out loud. This wouldn't be ridiculous at all in four or eight years. It really is 12 days into a presidency.

So I get your overall point and agree with it to some extent, but I don't think it's being anti-Obama to be offended by the Nobel committee's condescending attitude.

I look at it like this. How often do you (someone) negatively
criticize an umpire/referee for making a bad call against the other
team that wins the game for you? It's rare. We acknowledge it was a
bad call but say hey it happens sometimes and we move on happy the
call went our way. It's a positive reaction. On the other hand, It's
the other team that vehemently blast the decision because they feel
like the victims of the call. Many of the Obama responses feel like
those of the “other team” rather than our team. That is the part I
don't understand.