Comments on: Haters: You Brought it on Yourselves. You Got Obama his Nobel

By: El Gordo

El Gordo — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 23:20:20 +0000

If you think Europeans follow American politics this closely, you may be just as provincial and uneducated as you accuse conservatives to be. The world does not revolve around the latest obsessions in Washington.

By: Kate Ludlow

Kate Ludlow — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:42:01 +0000

This is the funniest column I’ve read in quite some time. What hate? The right is DELIGHTED with this award. What better way to highlight and lampoon the vapid president that is Barak Obama? We are laughing our asses off!

By: robotech master

robotech master — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 03:35:58 +0000

To 27. myth buster

There is some doubt as to if obama really did sign his selective service form when he turned 18 vs when he ran for senate.

By: John

John — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 02:28:45 +0000

If Obama’s award was achieved in a political vacuum you’d have a stronger case, Ron. But it comes in the wake of Jimmy Carter’s win in 2003, and Al Gore’s victory in 2007.

Carter won at the same time he was a major critic of George W. Bush’s War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq, even though the award was not ostensibly for that. Al Gore won at the same time he was a major critic of Bush’s foreign policy and economic and environmental policies. And Obama won on Friday because he was seen as the channel by which Bush’s policies would be reversed.

The Nobel committee didn’t look at any guns, or hate speech, or even Fred Arimsen’s Saturday Night Live skit a week ago and decide “Golly, that’s pretty mean to Mr. Obama, especially after the Olympic Committee snub. Let’s give him the Peace Prize.” They would have done it anyway, because over the past six years the award had already morphed into the Nobush Peace Prize.

By: turfmonster

turfmonster — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 01:17:06 +0000

If the Obama-haters are the reason why the Nobel committee gave Obama the Nobel prize, then why is it that Bush didn’t win one himself? After all, Bush, was referred to (and in many different forms) as Hitler, his haters foamed at the mouth (and on more occasions than can be mentioned for many different reasons) in public, and his haters hid behind anonymity.

Your argument simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

By: charlie finch

charlie finch — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 00:31:01 +0000

I just watched the clip of Mark Halperin on “Morning Joe” comparing Obama’s Nobel to Marisa Tomei’s Oscar win (when supposedly the wrong winner was read) right after it was announced, followed by Rahm Emmanual emailing the idiot Scarborough that he is an “a-hole” which the sexy newreader reads off the computer while Zbig’s daughter watches. You know it’s all a set up, especially the Nobel, and we are the suckers, giving our “opinions” about David Letterman

By: charlie finch

charlie finch — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:11:33 +0000

Doesn’t the timing after the Copenhagen rejections seem odd? Did the Nobel Committee just decide last week, and was shoring up Obama the real reason he got the prize? And all this “we didn’t know it was coming stuff ” seem a little fraudulent? I think everything Obama does is manufactured by his team. There is no evidence that he ever deliberates on policy. His statement early in his Presidency that most decisions are made before they reached his desk seemed fanciful, but look who’s tweaking the health care bill behind closed doors: Harry Reid, not Obama? Looks who’s jousting in public over Afghanistan: General McChrystal (right out of a Keith Moon routine for those cpnversant with the Who box set) speaks ad hoc in London. Doughboy Jim Jones refutes him on “Meet the Press” and then, a day after his prostate troubles are revealed and articles describe the devolution of his public role, Genereal Petraeus gives a tour de force speech in front of a US Army private institution that summarizes the security state of the world. Where’s Obama? Listening to his wife talk about her family life in Denmark, a speech which sealed the deal for Rio. Obama looks authentic but the day may come when people see that he may be entirely canned.

By: myth buster

myth buster — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 22:52:18 +0000

I have to defend Obama’s honor (lol) against the charge of draft dodging. Obama did register with the Selective Service as required by law, and he was not drafted because there was no draft by the time he turned 18 (in 1977). His ass would have been bounced out of any branch of the military if he had tried to join on account of drug use, but he’s no draft dodger.

By: Zach Hunter

Zach Hunter — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:02:33 +0000

I’m bewildered by the award and impressed by Obama’s speech. Mickey Kaus on Slate argues that Obama needn’t have accepted the award, and perhaps that would have been the most honorable thing to do, considering the Nobel committee didn’t give a reason for their decision. To Obama’s credit, his speech is gentlemanly and modest–”I accept this award as a call to action”–and even manages to make a little sense from the committee’s decision by floating it in the efforts of “all those who fight for dignity and justice.” Still, while the ferocity of some of his enemies is bemusing (isn’t the contention not that he’s enacted leftist policies, but that he hasn’t really done much yet?), I think it’s stretch to say that the uninhibited and sometimes violent rudeness of right-wingers prompted the choice. It might rather be seen as kind of knighting, like the gift of the Garter or the Fleur-de-lis, to cement, or propose, an alliance based on shared values, i.e. “Mr. Obama, we trust you. Do the right thing.”

By: johnt

johnt — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:29:58 +0000

Ron, has it occurred to you that your fixation on hate, your constant use of the word, is more a reflection on you then those you criticize. It is Ron, the spew of your own hate which may be boiling the remnants of your brain. You really seem to be going psycho, not much else to say but do try a change of pace, of approach, of that famous liberal tolerance which seems to have disappeared.