http://blog.al.com/stantis/2007/10/Stantis-NobelpoliticsCOLORRGB.jpg

One can only hope that Obama does not let this affect his any foreign policy decisions.

This prize is an artifact of the excitement he generated around the world in 2008, not anything he’s done in 2009, other than not being George W. Bush. (But, thanks for doing the legwork on the nominating process–how cool that *I* can now nominate anyone I like! I have a few ideas. . . )

Nobel statutes on who can nominate were slightly broadened in 2003. They now include former laureates; current and former members of the committee and their staff; members of national governments and legislatures; university professors of law, theology, social sciences, history and philosophy; leaders of peace research and foreign affairs institutes; and members of international courts of law.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091009/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nobel_peace_myths

So any member of Congress, any law or political science professor, any thinktank member could have started the process — and someone had to know his record well enough to compile a report that would make him competitive with other potential nominees. Since America didn’t hear of Obama before 2004, and he wasn’t prominent as a candidate until 2008, the nominator had to get some cooperation from his team before the election. He was too obscure concerning his initiatives centered on peace, otherwise.

The Nobel papers are locked away for 50 years, but someone will talk here, soon enough. The people who work for him have too much ego not to.

“The people who work for him” nominated him??? I don’t think anyone associated with the Obama campaign has the standing to nominate anyone for the Nobel Prize. The Nobel committee makes the choice on its own, and uses its own standards. The committee was presumably looking at what Obama had promised during the campaign, and what he’d said in the aftermath of the election, and hoped to encourage that process, and build on it.

The Nobel papers are locked away for 50 years, but someone will talk here, soon enough. The people who work for him have too much ego not to.

This is exactly my concern, too. Pomp and ceremony are fine if they’re in the service of a solid agenda. (Isn’t this the lesson of the Commander Codpiece performance of 2003? That grand gestures that commemorate nothing are ultimately hollow and will be seen as foolish?) But I suspect that a lot of this pomp and ceremony that Obama has surrounded himself with, and that now is laid at his feet (in the Nobel), may threaten his ability to get stuff done. (Stuff done, not speeches!)

In the end, I’m doubtful that Obama will tailor his policies in deference to the Nobel. He’ll just have to try a bit harder to convince people that sending 40,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan is really in the service of peace. (I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad idea, so long as there’s a clear goal in mind and a timeline for getting the hell out. Lord knows the European allies & other members of the coalition forces there are damned tired and want to get the hell out themselves.) At least, if he’s smart he won’t let the Nobel get in his way. But unfortunately, that’s all it is at this point in his career–it’s something that could impede his agenda rather than facilitate it.

It’s too bad the Nobel committee couldn’t have waited a few years to take the measure of his accomplishments. But as I suggested in an earlier comment, that’s precisely what makes awarding it to him this year so enticing–there’s no troubling war record or other lengthy record of public service to get in the way. If they waited a few years until he had actually done something, they would have been challenged to explain the award even more in light of Obama’s decision to bomb X region of Afghanistan or to launch air strikes in Waziristan. (For example.)