Althouse: It's the Bloggingheads Nobel Prizapalooza.

October 9, 2009

It's the Bloggingheads Nobel Prizapalooza.

Ha ha ha ha. And you thought I had done enough with my all-Nobel-Prize-all-the-time blog theme of the day.

Enjoy!!!!

52 comments:

Lem Vibe Bandit said...: A catholic a Jew and a Nobel Prize winner walk into a bar..; 10/9/09, 3:59 PM
Chase said...: Just watched 9 minutes -

You cleaned Hanna's clock, Ann.

Thank you.; 10/9/09, 4:08 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: sorry i cant watch till i get home.; 10/9/09, 4:11 PM
traditionalguy said...: "He's there for the whole world, and that is a backhanded weakening of the American Presidency", says the Professor.So how will Obama react to that? Will he agree with his being there for the whole world, or will he stay an American? Ask Rev. Wright how a parishoner at his church is trained to react to such an opportunity.; 10/9/09, 4:17 PM
Unknown said...: Ann -- question for you. On BHT you compared Obama to a child prodigy, and said that he kept getting awards that he didnt deserve. Please Ann, educate me here -- who deserves to be president ? And for however you answer, I'd love to also know how this informs your views on George Bush and Sarah Palin. cheers.; 10/9/09, 4:18 PM
Matt said...: "Something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about and that is he doesn't deserve the award."
Rush Limbaugh

No one has to make the connection now. Rush and many on the Right admit they agree with the Taliban. Is anyone surprised? Policies of the Neocons helped create the Taliban. Actions by Eisenhower and the CIA helped create the current Iran government / religious state.; 10/9/09, 4:24 PM
Unknown said...: seriously, traditional guy ? really ? .... i do get that there are some people who will always see BO as 'other,' ... but is it possible to stick to the issue at hand ? and to Ann's point about weakening the American Presidency, perhaps they'd like to pressure him, but I do think the President is smart enough and strong enough to try to find ways to use this award to his advantage as opposed to being cowed into doing something that the committee in Oslo prefers.; 10/9/09, 4:31 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "who deserves to be president ?"

I never accept that anyone does. In fact, that was one of my reasons for voting for Obama in spite of the argument that he lacked any experience: that no one has (or can get) enough of the right kind of experience.

But I do think he should have gone through more and matured. I voted for him because I thought he had the resources to rise to the occasion -- more than McCain did.

I didn't think Clinton, Bush, or Reagan were ready either, but they all, at least had a fairly substantial experience in an executive position.

I've never felt comfortable with anyone becoming President for the first time. I'm a little more secure with incumbents, but basically, I'm wary of all of them.

You should be too.; 10/9/09, 4:32 PM
AllenS said...: Ok, then, there is more!; 10/9/09, 4:33 PM
Chase said...: Matt,

You've got to be careful getting your talking points from Charlie Rangel and Keith Olbermann - they are gonna leave you high and dry sat some point. It's hard for you guys to come up for air in the real world when you keep sucking the same left-wing dicks.; 10/9/09, 4:33 PM
daubiere said...: so what youre saying matt is that arabs, persians and other "others" are incapable of being responsible for their own actions and, child-like, are led astray only by the actions of white American "adults"??

horribly, paternalistically racist in the typical left-wing manner. disgusting.; 10/9/09, 4:34 PM
Synova said...: We slept in... my husband woke up and checked his iphone and my first reaction to the news was, "I think I need to check Althouse blog." Which he then did, on his iphone.

For not being George Bush.

Been busy since then.; 10/9/09, 4:34 PM
daubiere said...: "I do think the President is smart enough and strong enough to try to find ways to use this award to his advantage as opposed to being cowed into doing something that the committee in Oslo prefers."

youre assuming that obama doesnt have the same goals in mind as oslo.

i have seen no evidence that barack obama likes anything about america other than that it gave him the power to completely change it.; 10/9/09, 4:37 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: A Nobel peace prize winner and Comic sans walk into a bar. The Nobel peace prize winner orders a Scotch and water. Comic sans cracks up laughing. The Nobel peace prize winner asks,"What's so damn funny?" Comic sans answers, "I don't know, it's just everything you say sounds ridiculous."; 10/9/09, 4:40 PM
Cedarford said...: We DO have to bow down!

Why, Barack, based on two weeks of his Presidency - has been transformed into a Great Man.

Why, because Obama is now like Saint Martin Luther King!

And Desmond Tutu, and Arafat, and Kissinger, and Mandela, and a crazy nun.

Why are they all great?

Beacuse they all got the Revered Nobel Peace Prize, silly!

Bow, bow to them.
Pray you are even an iota as worthy in your useless common lives. You will be forced to change..to improve yourself...by their August Example.
Bow, bow and be happy if they smile upon you!!; 10/9/09, 4:43 PM
Anonymous said...: i have seen no evidence that barack obama likes anything about america other than that it gave him the power to completely change it.

I think Krauthammer nails it re: Obama and the left's agenda for America.; 10/9/09, 4:45 PM
ricpic said...: This creature Rosin, and to some extent Althouse, both skip merrily into the jaws of death, not even acknowledging that there is such a thing as the jaws of death, which are rapidly closing on all of us. The key here is that these are safe people. They've been safe all their lives, don't even know what's kept them safe and assume safety is forever. It's not. And thanks to the naivete of these pampered puppies we are on the verge of experiencing the full horror up close and personal.; 10/9/09, 4:47 PM
Irene said...: "I'm going to be explaining all my jokes."

Priceless. You had it from the get-go!; 10/9/09, 4:50 PM
rcocean said...: Why is everyone taking this so seriously?
It reflects the opinion of a couple of left-wing Swedes.

Arafat, Linus Pauling, Rabin, Kissinger, Cordell Hull, Wilson, TR, Jimmy Carter, and EH Root all got the award.

Its a joke, and always has been.; 10/9/09, 4:56 PM
Cedarford said...: Barack=MLK. Proven Great men. Great because they did great speeches and have the vaunted Peace Prize.

The One will change you, and you really have no choice in that. Of the things Barack will do to improve your life and give you Hope.

Show you are worthy. Join the children in singing his praise. Listen to the children! The children!; 10/9/09, 4:57 PM
Unknown said...: 'youre assuming that obama doesnt have the same goals in mind as oslo.

i have seen no evidence that barack obama likes anything about america other than that it gave him the power to completely change it.'

Wow. tough crowd here. i believe you may be confusing what Obama has called one of the greatest aspects of america as 'its capacity for change' with suspicion about Obama's motives and character.... but again, it would be nice to stick to the issues and not resort to unsubstantiated attacks on the president's character.

on oslo's goals vs obama's -- the likelihood of 2 people agreeing on every possible topic are near zero, and much less so for one person and an entire committee .... so lets be real here: there will be things that Obama seeks that Oslo wont agree with. If Obama was the type to bow to pressure, then there would have been an executive order appealing dont ask dont tell, healthcare would probably have been handled differently, and ... anything else that the progressive base wanted it would have.; 10/9/09, 5:00 PM
Unknown said...: Ann Althouse said...

"who deserves to be president ?"

I never accept that anyone does. ...

I didn't think Clinton, Bush, or Reagan were ready either...

Good point. No one "deserves" the job, it's awarded, through election, to the one who makes the best case to the electorate.

And, with the possible exception of an Eisenhower, not my fave BTW, almost no one is anywhere near ready.

OT You look scrumptious in the video, Ann. Marriage agrees with you.; 10/9/09, 5:02 PM
miller said...: Not to pile on Hanna, but she really doesn't get it quickly, does she?

I mean, I *got it* when I first read it. And you had to explain it to her like 100 times.; 10/9/09, 5:04 PM
Penny said...: I think Hannah was prepared to talk about Obama and the Peace Prize for ten minutes tops. Once she realized Althouse needed to vent, she did as all good women do with each other...she let that happen.; 10/9/09, 5:07 PM
Jason (the commenter) said...: Chase: You cleaned Hanna's clock, Ann.

I don't think Hanna was even trying to win here, she was playing the roll of the devil's advocate. It's funny, because practically no one thinks this Nobel prize was a good idea. Rush is right, it's unifying the nation!; 10/9/09, 5:28 PM
XWL said...: How about this angle on the Nobel Peace Prize nonsense:

They're a bunch of sexist. Our 'chief diplomant' is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. If the Obama Administration deserves recognition so soon after taking charge, shouldn't it be the chief diplomat that is recognized?

If criticizing Obama's award is racist, then awarding him over his chief diplomat is sexist.; 10/9/09, 5:29 PM
Anonymous said...: I think he knew it was in the works. After all he's been nominated since February, and I doubt the Nobels are leak-proof.

His speech before the Security Council on rainbows and unicorns...er, a nuclear-free world set up the award. Even Sarkozy could not believe he didn't mention Iran and NK's nuclear programs. He wanted the Nobel.; 10/9/09, 5:38 PM
William said...: Hannah said that she trusted Obama was a man of such native humility that there were would be no big head issues with this award. Grmmph....Different people really live in different worlds. In my world capitalism works better than socialism; rape of children is wrong; it is better to win a war with nasty fanatics than to lose. To this list add my belief that Obama's unshakeable self confidence is based more on the faith of his followers than on any record of accomplishment....Mozart was a child prodigy. Not all child prodigues wither and die. Perhaps in twenty or thirty years Obama will come to understand that capitalism works better than socialism and the world will be a better place because of the insights of this elder statesman. Perhaps we'll all sprout gossamer wings and fly to the moon.; 10/9/09, 5:39 PM
hombre said...: Danielle wrote: If Obama was the type to bow to pressure, then there would have been an executive order appealing [sic.] dont ask dont tell, healthcare would probably have been handled differently...

You meant to say: "If Obama was the type to keep his promises about repealing DADT and legislative transparency ...," didn't you?

But I guess keeping promises hasn't anything to do with character among the minions of the left.; 10/9/09, 5:47 PM
themightypuck said...: I might be naive but I don't think I've ever been that worried about a US president. They just don't tend to do crazy things. The most lasting critiques of US presidents all tend to boil down to optics. People hate Carter but what horrible things did he really do. Same goes for Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush... What life changing turn the train around things have any of these people done? It's all very incremental. Compare Reagan to Thatcher. Reagan was mostly optics whereas Thatcher changed Britain profoundly.; 10/9/09, 5:52 PM
Beth said...: Jason at 5:28 is correct. Not all discussions are battles.; 10/9/09, 5:58 PM
Chris Althouse Cohen said...: I think Obama should have rejected the award, and I also think that he accepted it prior to it being publicly offered. I don't believe for a second that they announce the winner without privately okay-ing it with the recipient first. This was such a ridiculous choice that they were genuinely risking it being rejected by Obama if they didn't make sure in advance that he would accept it. That might seem unlikely, but it was a possibility. (Of course, he didn't reject Louis Farrakhan's endorsement during the primary, so why would he reject the Nobel Peace Prize?)

Has anyone ever rejected the award after it was offered? They've been doing it for over 100 years, it would seem strange if not one person rejected it on moral or religious grounds in all that time. It's not as if once an award is at a certain level of prestige it can't be rejected.; 10/9/09, 6:43 PM
Unknown said...: No, elHombre, I didnt mean 'if Obama had kept his promises ...'

IT HAS ONLY BEEN 9 MONTHS AND THE ECONOMY WENT TO HELL ! c'mon people, lets keep our expectations in check. If at the end of his presidency a large chunk of what he said he was going to do hasnt been tried and has not been held up by congress, then you can whine about it.; 10/9/09, 6:59 PM
Unknown said...: oh, and Ann, a follow up to my question above -- around minute 18 you say something to the affect of 'the fact is...he's like a child prodigy .. he has prematurely been elevated to positions he didnt deserve'. So, clearly, no person would put BO in the same category w/ E Weisel, MLK, Mandela, D. Tutu etc. So if this is one's view of the Nobel Peace Prize, then yes, he doesnt deserve it. But, in light of your statement that no one deserves the presidency, what else are you using to make this analogy to him as a child prodigy ?

Your arguments typically seem to me that you're trying to cut through other people's Obama-worship, and sometimes also Obama's cockiness. But here you seem to be piling on w/ Rush et al as Obama being an illegitimate President (i.e. child prodigy) ...

so, what gives Ann ? I cant imagine that you agree w/ people who want to delegitimize a President you voted for and for an office which he won in a fair and democratic election.; 10/9/09, 7:41 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Danielle:

Neither Rush nor Althouse are trying to "deligitimize" Obama's presidency. To call someone green or inexperienced or too young just reiterates the main criticisms of Obama during the campaign.

Though I think it is safe to say Altouse would love a chance to change her vote. But I could be wrong.; 10/9/09, 8:00 PM
Jason (the commenter) said...: Mary: Do enlighten us from your Madison-nurtured, Austin-matured, point of view: exactly what the moran and religious objections might their be to receiving the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize?

The Nobel Peace Prize gives world-wide attention (and some money) to whomever wins it. The President is rich and has all the attention he needs already. In refusing he could say that he realizes these things and would not want to rob someone who toils for peace in obscurity to be robbed of the sort of a help a Nobel Peace Prize can give them.

He'd be saying he knows there are more problems in the world than just those faced by him or his country. He'd be rejecting the Nobel in a way that shows he deserves it.

Really, I've been trying to think like a true liberal

Don't run before you can walk. You can get there though, I have faith in you.; 10/9/09, 8:24 PM
Synova said...: BTW, Obama can't repeal DADT. Or, he can but it will still be illegal for gays to serve in the military. DADT was an order signed by Clinton (because Clinton couldn't change the law either) that directed the military not to *ask*. Obama could sign an order today revoking DADT but homosexual behavior would still be a UCMJ violation.

One of two things is true.

Obama knew that he had no power to revoke DADT, knew that doing so would not result in the change in policy he was promising... he simply lied to get votes.

Or else he really thought he could just sign a piece of paper and change the law... which makes him uninformed and ignorant.

Obama (like any other president *ever*) does not get to make promises for which he gets let off the hook on account of he's prevented from keeping them by Congress. (And who has a slam-dunk majority just now?); 10/9/09, 8:35 PM
Jason (the commenter) said...: Synova: One of two things is true.

Obama knew that he had no power to revoke DADT, knew that doing so would not result in the change in policy he was promising... he simply lied to get votes.

Or else he really thought he could just sign a piece of paper and change the law... which makes him uninformed and ignorant.

We all assumed he would have the bill put before Congress and then sign it into law. I don't remember anyone telling him what he was saying in regards to DADT was impossible legally during the campaign.; 10/9/09, 8:43 PM
Jason (the commenter) said...: Mary: That's not a moral objection. "I object to getting this prize morally because there are others more worthy than me"?

Because the prize is of no use to him in comparison to what it can do to help others. And he should not specifically say he objects to the prize on moral or religious grounds, that would be needless cruelty. Simply stating the facts would enlighten those who heard his words. Everyone would be able to enjoy the act, even the Nobel Committee, because it would show they had chosen someone who was worthy of honor.

He would only have been worthy of the prize if he had rejected it.

Think about that.; 10/9/09, 9:11 PM
Synova said...: "We all assumed he would have the bill put before Congress and then sign it into law. I don't remember anyone telling him what he was saying in regards to DADT was impossible legally during the campaign."

That's because everyone was assuming that he'd put the bill before Congress and then sign the law. ;-)

But did he ever *say* that?

But I know I've heard the claim that he could just revoke DADT... which, since it was just an order signed by Clinton, he could. Not everyone opposed to DADT knows anything about it other than that it's evil and gay people get kicked out of the military if they "tell" and Harvard and Columbia (or whatever) use it as an excuse to deny ROTC on campus.

I don't really expect the average person to know more than that, but someone running for President and promising to end it has no excuse.; 10/9/09, 9:53 PM
Synova said...: Actually "DADT" is shorthand for not allowing gays in the military and it's right to understand it as such even if *technically* that's not what DADT is at all.

Just like "ANWAR" is shorthand for drilling for oil on a portion of desolate tundra the size of LAX while "ANWAR" is a humongous and richly populated wilderness reserve.; 10/9/09, 9:57 PM
Alex said...: I see we have a new troll danielle.; 10/9/09, 10:02 PM
mtrobertsattorney said...: There is a distinction between "illegitimate" and "incompetent". Obama legitimately won the election. But his compentency remains in question.

The idiot/savant theory seems to gaining traction with each passing week.; 10/9/09, 10:05 PM
ContraMan said...: Who is this intelligent, witty woman who I've never heard of until now. Hanna Rosin?

She undoubtedly is in complete disagreement with all my crude GRWC views, but still, I found her to be a tolerant, thoughtful woman with a wonderful dry wit. A condition rare on either side of this wondefully bitter political divide.

It was interesting to see Ann (who I was betting on) throw telegraphed round houses punches while Hanna was doing her graceful rope-a-dope.

I'd score that round a TKO, Hanna winning on charm.

But now on to the critical swimsuit portion of our contest.....girls are ready?; 10/10/09, 12:05 AM
Beth said...: There are so many posts here on the Nobel thing that it's hard to pick one to jump into. The "bow down to thread" is a mess. I'll skip that.

We went to hear Sarah Vowell tonight, speaking at the New Orleans Center for the Creative Arts, where she'd done a workshop for the writing students there. It was enjoyable, as I expected.

In the Q&A session, someone asked her opinion on Obama and the Nobel, and her reaction was pretty much what everyone has said: For what? You can assume the audience was fairly middle-class, mostly white, mostly liberal and we were all scratching our heads. One guy said, "For not being Bush" and Vowell replied, well, then that's a big European fuck you to the whole country.; 10/10/09, 12:47 AM
MamaM said...: Whew...Today's collection of comments is 1 dozen short of 1200 (with the last thread going over 200). They represent an amazing amount of time and energy spent in thought, discourse, attack, defense and creative expression.

When people willingly engage in this much "vigorous debate" something is in the process of shifting, changing or being reformed.; 10/10/09, 1:12 AM
Synova said...: I responded to you on the other thread, Beth.

I won't insist that my opinion is cold hard fact, only that it wasn't formed without evidence.

I'm glad you had a nice evening and I can just about promise that it was more productive than my own. :-); 10/10/09, 2:22 AM
free_technology said...: Obama is a genuine leader. Sleep deep.; 10/10/09, 4:40 AM
rhhardin said...: "You receive Nobel Peace Prize.

Collect $10 from each player."; 10/10/09, 7:59 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: I, too, am struck by how much I enjoyed that conversation. Ann, you and Hanna need to take this one on the road. It was really great:

Two smart thoughtful women.

I almost forgot there is such a thing.

The Macho Response; 10/10/09, 8:17 AM
Beth said...: Synova, I replied there as well. Thanks.; 10/10/09, 3:21 PM
Unknown said...: Chris althouse cohen,
le duc tho declined http://www.nobelpreis.org/english/frieden/tho.html; 10/10/09, 10:53 PM