The Speech

Interesting that there's love for Obama's speech from left and right, but with more members of the left falling out than the right, and more members of the right once again over-simplifying that the President somehow justified Bush-Cheneyism in his speech.

He didn't -- no preemptive war in the Iraq sense. No real American Exceptionalism to justify everything we do -- rule of law necessary here to keep us on the moral highground.

Here's Glenn Greenwald on the oddities of the (mostly) bipartisan phenomenon:

Indeed, Obama insisted upon what he called the "right" to wage wars "unilaterally"; articulated a wide array of circumstances in which war is supposedly "just" far beyond being attacked or facing imminent attack by another country; explicitly rejected the non-violence espoused by King and Gandhi as too narrow and insufficiently pragmatic for a Commander-in-Chief like Obama to embrace; endowed us with the mission to use war as a means of combating "evil"; and hailed the U.S. for underwriting global security for the last six decades (without mentioning how our heroic efforts affected, say, the people of Vietnam, or Iraq, or Central America, or Gaza, and so many other places where "security" is not exactly what our wars "underwrote"). So it's not difficult to see why Rovian conservatives are embracing his speech; so much of it was devoted to an affirmation of their core beliefs.

The more difficult question to answer is why -- given what Drum described -- so many liberals found the speech so inspiring and agreeable? Is that what liberals were hoping for when they elected Obama: someone who would march right into Oslo and proudly announce to the world that we have a unilateral right to wage war when we want and to sing the virtues of war as a key instrument for peace? As Tom Friedman put it on CNN yesterday: "He got into their faces . . . I'm for getting into the Europeans' face." Is that what we needed more of?

The New York Times is one of the speech supporters:

Accepting the Nobel Peace Prize on Thursday, President Obama gave the speech he needed to give, but we suspect not precisely the one the Nobel committee wanted to hear...

...In a speech that was both somber and soaring, he returned again and again to Afghanistan, arguing that the war was morally just and strategically necessary to defend the United States and others from more terrorist attacks.

In a moving passage, he invoked the memories of Mahatma Gandhi and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., saying that without Dr. King’s vision, leadership and sacrifice, he never would have been standing at that lectern in Oslo.

But he said he could not be guided by their examples alone. “For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince Al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms.”

I keep asking all of my friends who think Obama shouldn't have ordered the 30,000 additional troops to Afghanstan if they believe withdrawal was the answer. Otherwise, Obama chose the best option. But if you truly believe there is nothing more to be gained there, no threat now or future that we can stem by changing our strategy from the Bush-Cheney one (whatever it was -- belligerent neglect?), then fine, it's up to Obama (or Osama, with another 9/11-type attack, God forbid) to prove you wrong.

I'll end with a less sanguine quote from Professor Juan Cole's post on the speech, a different kind of warning:

Obama has yet to decide whether he is a visionary or a technocrat. The prize committee hoped for the former. In this speech they got the latter.

One month from now will be one year in with Obama, and State of the Union time.

And with it come the first legitimate judgments.

Noble

I had the same reaction as a lot of people when I first got the news today that President Barack Obama had been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize: a little premature?

We'll get to the Right in a moment, but in the strongest bastions of the Anti-War Left there's a sentiment that he needs to prove it -- by deescalating Afghanistan, pulling fully out of Iraq, keeping out of war with Iran and closing Guantanamo once and for all. If and only then will he deserve the Prize.

On the Right it's been rather convincing. In the sense that it has convinced me of the Nobel committee's unanimous wisdom. The criticism of Obama's win is as harsh as it was for his loss with the International Olympic Committee last week, inspiring this response from the Democratic National Committee:

"The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists -- the Taliban and Hamas this morning -- in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize," Brad Woodhouse said in a statement.

Harsh words! But the de facto leader of the GOP agrees:

Folks, do you realize something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about and that is he doesn't deserve the award. Now that's hilarious, that I'm on the same side of something with the Taliban, and that we all are on the same side as the Taliban.

A parody list of GOP/Fox News talking points here, some of which are already no longer satire. My favorite:

6. Besides, who cares what a bunch of geeks in Oslo think? The International Olympic Committee speaks for the whole world.

The Nobel committee defended their decision:

The five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee - four of whom spoke to The Associated Press, said awarding Obama the peace prize could be seen as an early vote of confidence intended to build global support for the policies of his young administration.

They lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and 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.

"Some people say - and I understand it - 'Isn't it premature? Too early?' Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now," Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, told the AP. "It is now that we have the opportunity to respond - all of us."

Jagland said the committee whittled down a record pool of 205 nominations and had "several candidates until the last minute," but it became more obvious that "we couldn't get around these deep changes that are taking place" under Obama.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/nobel-prize-to-obama-defe_n_316098.html

Their lips to God's ear on the deep changes part. But maybe their right about time being of the essence, not waiting until it's too late to award this recipient. For as readers of Nettertainment know, I do believe the Rightwing rhetoric and imagery distortion such as aligns with and promotes the Teabaggers is geared towards dehumanizing our President and providing a proverbial license to...well, am I so crazy to think it?:

Robert Lowry, a businessman running against Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), stopped by a local Republican event that was held at a shooting range. Lowry stepped up to show his marksmanship, and fired at a human silhouette target -- with the letters "DWS" written next to the head.

Lowry later told the Sun-Sentinel that he did not know who wrote the letters next to the target, but that he did know they were there when he started shooting. After further questioning, he admitted it "was a mistake" to shoot at the target.

Ah, that gun culture again.

Credit where credit is due: President Obama's opponent in the 2008 election, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was both gracious and patriotic about the award:

In contrast to the biting statement issued by the RNC, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) says he's "proud" that an American president has been awarded the Nobel peace prize.

"I’m sure that the president is very honored to receive this award," McCain told CNN's John King.

"And Nobel Committee, I can’t divine all their intentions, but I think part of their decision-making was expectations. And I’m sure the president understands that he now has even more to live up to. But as Americans, we’re proud when our president receives an award of that prestigious category."

On a more humorous note, the U.S. State Department said:

Certainly from our standpoint, this gives us a sense of momentum -- when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes.

The President himself was modest, almost to the point of showing his own embarrassment at winning an award he did not seek, but used it as a complement to our entire nation (deserving, no doubt, for having transcended a legacy of racism in voting him into office) and a charge for worthy future action:



And finally, here's the opinion I find most bracing, from one of Andrew Sullivan's readers, reminding of the spirit that originally drew so many of us to Primary candidate Obama the night he won the very first Caucus, in Iowa:

Remember how Obama should have stepped aside and let Hillary win the primaries? Remember how America wasn't ready for a black President, of course, so why didn't he just realize it and wait his turn? Remember last summer when the candidate went to Germany and gave speech before hundreds of thousands of adoring fans? How arrogant. Who does he think he is? Only a president should do that. He should have at least waited until he won. And then he did win. And he took a world tour and gave a game changing speech in the Cairo. Who did he think he was? A rock star? The arrogance and audacity--it's breathtaking. If the man would just wait his turn, dammit.

Per Presidential candidate Obama, our moment is now.

Godspeed.