President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for giving the world "hope for a better future" and striving for nuclear disarmament. Really? According to Associated Press writer Gregory Katz, "the new president was hailed for his willingness to reach out to the Islamic world, his commitment to curtailing the spread of nuclear weapons and his goal of bringing the Israelis and Palestinians into serious, fruitful negotiations."
Goals? Commitments? Willingness? Every President in history has started out their presidency with goals and commitments, some have succeeded, some have failed, but they all had them to start. If that is the criteria, than shouldn't every President have won a Nobel Prize too? Isn't this prize a bit premature?
Shouldn't the Nobel Peace Prize go to someone who has done something to achieve Peace, not just someone who has every intention to do so? Isn't that kind of like awarding someone an Olympic Gold Medal because they have the Goals, Commitments and Willingness to someday learn to run track?
Past Presidents to receive this prize were Theodore Roosevelt (1906), Woodrow Wilson (1919), and Jimmy Carter (2002), and all of these Presidents did something in their Presidency to warrant the Nobel nod. Why not wait until Obama actually does something in his Presidency, anything, before we decide what type of President he is?
In 2001, Bush's approval rating was sky high. By 2008, it was a different story. I am 100% behind my President, and although I didn't vote for him, I sincerely hope he someday becomes the President that everyone hopes he will. If he does, someday, give him a prize, more power to you, but until then, give it to someone who has already proven himself.
What do you think? Leave a comment below and post your thoughts!
~Matt
1 comment:
i voted for obama, i love the guy. But i'm sick of hearing about EVERY LITTLE THING he has done or did or won w/e. geesh. some things we can care less about
Post a Comment