ODS

I understand Ms. Maddow's point but I find it somewhat hollow and here's why.

One of the pillars of Ms. Maddow's defence of Obama's Nobel Peace Prize (NPP) win is a comparison to a series of people who had won the award over the previous century who hadn't 'achieved' success in their stated aims. While true its a misleading comparison. . However I think that if one is honest they will recognize that those individuals had been striving towards those aims for longer than three weeks.

First there is Desmond Tutu. Bishop Tutu began his public opposition to apartheid in South Africa during the Soweto Riots of 1976. Bishop Tutu struggled and fought against the racist and oppresive policies of the South African government for 8 years by the time he was awarded the NPP in 1984. True, apartheid had not been abolished at the time Bishop Tutu's recognition by the Nobel committee, but he had put forth much time and energy in his struggle prior to his win. The same can not be said about Obama.

Next there was mention of former US President Woodrow Wilson who had been awarded the NPP in 1919. President Wilson won the award in recognition of his work in negotiating the Treaty of Versailles that put an official end to World War One as well as being a key player in the creation of the League of Nations (precursor to the United Nations). Ms. Maddow is correct that neither the League or the Treaty ensured lasting peace in Europe as Hitler's rise to power was only 13 years away and World War Two was only 20 years distant. However when President Wilson won the NPP he had accomplished to great tasks that strove in concrete ways for world peace. The same can't be said for Obama.

Ms. Maddow also made mention to another US President; Jimmy Carter. Carter was a one term President who served from 1977 through 1981. During those four short years he helped to negotiate the Camp David Accords, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks II that saw the reduction in the nuclear arsenals of the US and their cold-war adversary the USSR, the Torrijos-Carter Treaties that ensured that Panama would gain control of the Panama Canal and reduce the influence of America in the Latin world, as well as removing nuclear weapons from South Korea, he put human rights at the forefront of American foreign policy, and he formalized diplomatic relations with China. He didn't win the NPP until 2002 and Ms. Maddow is correct that peace remained and remains elusive in the mid-east despite the efforts of President Carter. Such a simplistic reductionist attitude towards the efforts of President Carter does his efforts a supreme disservice and yet Obama can't claim to have accomplished even this 'failure'.

The fourth person that Ms. Maddow mentions in comparison to President Obama is Carl von Ossietzky who won the NPP in 1936. Once again Ms. Maddow brings for a blatantly and almost flippant reductionist attitude to the efforts of Mr. von Ossietzky. This was a man who during the turbulent period of the Weimar Republic was a staunch supporter of democracy and pluralistic society. He was charged and convicted of treason in 1931 for making public information on how the German government was violating the terms of the Treaty of Versailles by rebuilding its air force and training its pilots in the USSR. He was a leading figure in the German Peace Society and was an opponent of Hitler's rise to power. He was arrested on 28 February 1933 after the Reichstag Fire and put in Spandau Prison due to his speaking out against the Nazi Party. He would die on 4 May 1938 as a result of abuse suffered during his time in concentration camps and of tuberculosis. Ms. Maddow is correct though that Mr. vo Ossetzky's efforts did not end the Nazi regime but he struggled long and hard for peace in Europe and in Germany prior to winning the NPP. Obama can't say the same.

I personally find Ms. Maddow's characterization of these people demeaning and insulting in the extreme. It is doubly so given that she is comparing the real and concrete actions of these people with what are essentially a series of campaign speeches by a campaigning politician.

Another of the pillars in Ms. Maddow's defence of President Obama's winning of the NPP is the notion of convincing the 'most powerful nation on the planet' as being a significant matter. However, that is a bit of stretch as Obama received what 55% of the vote in the election? So 55% of the 70% of the electorate that voted, which is only 60% of the population. That works out to approximately 70 million people (Obama's official vote total was 69,456,897 nearly ten million more than his opponent John McCain) in a nation of 300+ million. So really he convinced 23% of the people in America. That is better ratings than American Idol though.

In the end I think that Ms. Maddow should have come up with a better argument for justifying Obama's victory given that the mandate for the Nobel Peace Prize is recognize the person/people who 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.”

No doubt Obama deserves recognition for his stance on nuclear weapons but he is not alone in this regard so does everyone who holds a similar stance deserve the Nobel? What about the American presidents who actually signed into law nuclear reduction treaties?

What Obama has said isn't unique, but what differentiates Obama from the other Nobel winners who 'achieved nothing' is that those people had concrete actions supporting their ongoing efforts prior to winning the award. Whereas it appears that President Obama won the award based on what people HOPE he will accomplish in the future. The question that has to be asked and answered is what has he ACCOMPLISHED or at the very least been working on over the past several years that would be worthy of such a prestigious honor?

Barack Obama was inaugurated President on January 20th. The deadline for NPP nominations was February 1st. That leaves 11 days of his presidency to be considered.

Obama has done a lot of things but if you look at the first 11 days of his presidency there are three things of international note. One is the declaration of the closing of Guantanamo within a year. Two is the phone calls and pressers to foreign nations. Three is the attack by US forces by drone aircraft on Pakistan.

Other than that things were domestic in nature and had little bearing on 'world peace'.

Given that much of what Obama had to have been nominated for (I don't know when or who nominated him) must surely have been for things prior to taking office. That being the (most likely) case then Rachel Maddow was equating political stump speeches by a political candidate with the real actions of the people she mentioned.

Being President isn't enough to earn you that award. There needs to be something more and Obama hasn't met that standard. Yet (at least I hope its yet).

The support that was offered in the piece for Obama's win has nothing to do with Obama as each of those people had done something of note in the field before winning the award. Sure the win can be seen as a voice of support for continued action but to equate Obama's campaign speeches with the work of these people is an insult to these people and the efforts they put forth against tyranny and injustice.

When Obama actually closes Guantanamo, reduces nuclear arms and ends the two wars that he is a part of (one of which he is escalating) then, in my opinion, he will be deserving. Till then some will continue to wonder why he won while others will simply bask in the fact that he did.