I'm reminded of the year Gladiator won the Best Picture Oscar

At the time, I was like "Why?" I didn't understand how something that played to me like an overall entertaining albeit third-rate version of Braveheart could have possibly won over actually substantive nominees like Traffic and Erin Brokovich, or Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon.

But then I realized that I don't HAVE to like everything that wins because I realize that it's not all about me. I realized that perhaps I don't know everything there is to know about movies or the selection process. And really, Gladiator wasn't a BAD movie really and I bet there are a lot of people here who probably loved it. Maybe I was just in the minorty! I mean, I've seen much better movies, but I've also seen far worse. Furthermore, I realized that it was stupid to get up in such a twist about something that is generally positive: someone winning an award for a lot of hard work. A lot of blood, sweat, and tears go into even the worst movies. And I CERTAINLY wouldn't have expected Ridley Scott and the producers of Gladiator to refuse to accept the gold statue because there were better films that year! That would have been absurd.

No, I'm not comparing Barack Obama to a third-rate version of Braveheart. In fact, I think he deserved this award and it is a deep honor for our country, and the people wallowing in sour grapes are making me sick. But I think maybe at least the first part of this post explains their mindset. Out of a pool of worthy candidates, they just don't think Obama was worthy enough. Fine, they're entitled to that opinion. I just wish they could reason their way past that and embrace this award for what it is--something GOOD--and realize that even if Barack Obama doesn't symbolize for them what he does to the Nobel Committee that awarded him, the committee knows a hell of a lot more about these things than they do, and I wish they would spend their apoplectic energy elsewhere.

"knows a hell of a lot more about these things than they do"

But I sure hope the haters among us will let a little bit of light shine on their bitter old hearts for just a minute. They might actually start to like it.

There was a pretty good post about it earlier today:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8693095

TomCADem writes:

President Obama's administration has in only ten months:

1. Followed through on plans to gradually withdraw from Iraq contrary to candidate McCain's promises.
2. Reached out to Muslim nations offering to treat them with respect, rather than lecturing down to them about American values and democracy.
3. Improved relations with Russia by dropping plans for a missle defense on Russia's border, moved towards nuclear arms reduction talks, and got Russia's temtative cooperation on Iran.
4. Initiated face to face discussions with Iran as he promised.
5. Managed to reverse North Korea's escalation of rhetoric.
6. Chaired the U.N. Security counsel, and passed a resolution committing to reduce nuclear arms following up on an earlier speech in Europe on the issue.
7. Improved the standing and power of the United Nations by committing to multi-lateralism.
8. Put pressure on Isreal to halt expansion of settlements, rather than just blindly supporting them against the Palestinians.
9. Convinced Pakistan to take more aggresive action against jihadist militants that got within 60 miles of Pakistan's capital, which placed Pakistan's nuclear arsenal at severe risk.
10. Reversing eight years of climate change denial from the Bush administration, and has supported efforts to pass a cap and trade bill through Congress.
11. Ratcheted down the rhetoric on Iran, and tried to engage them early on in his Presidency, which signiciantly helped opposition elements in the Iran election, since the U.S. was not playing the traditional role of the Great Satan.

Conservatives have opposed all of the above moves and some so-called liberals have minimized each of them. Thus, here we sit, with most right wingers, and some "liberals" opposing the award of the Nobel Peace price to President Obama.

The fact of the matter is that the President has signicantly changed the arc of world diplomacy, and based on his actions this past year, I think the award is well deserved. The shock and surprise over the President's award says more about us and our media, then it says about President Obama, because other countries apparently have a much different perspective. Afterall, remember the world leader saying that he can't understand why President Obama is being compared to Hitler for trying to expand health care.

Can President Obama do more? Of course. But does that mean he has done nothing? The answer is no.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8693963

Why No Kudos for Obama?

Response to President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize seems to be falling into two broad categories: the overwrought and the overthought. Why not a simple note of congratulations?

The right-wing blowhards, of course, are braying that this is some kind of surrender to the wooly-headed, socialistic, One World ideology of cheese-eating (or herring-chomping) Eurocrats. These same bags of wind were delirious with joy when the sports division of the One World conspiracy, the International Olympic Committee, turned down Obama’s personal appeal in Copenhagen. If someone else had won the Nobel, they’d be cackling that the president had been given another comeuppance. All this just proves that if Obama were to cure cancer, the blowhards would complain that he’s put thousands of hard-working, red-blooded American oncologists out of work.

Others say the award is “premature.” Okay, I can see that argument, but the Nobel committee apparently considered Obama’s redirection of American foreign policy toward multilateralism a groundbreaking accomplishment. The committee, it seems, thought that for the most powerful national leader in the world to embrace international cooperation and envision a world no longer menaced by nuclear weapons was a giant step forward. I can see that argument, too. In fact, I think I agree with it.

Still others, claiming to have Obama’s best interests at heart, say the award is an unfortunate blow because it “creates expectations.” Excuse me? When you’re president of the United States, aren’t great expectations – even unrealistic expectations – pretty much part of the deal? You think they haven’t figured that out at the White House by now?

Maybe I’m insufficiently cynical, but I never thought of the Nobel Peace Prize as having such a tremendous downside.

By Eugene Robinson | October 9, 2009; 4:40 PM ET

I was annoyed when forrest Gump won, I so thought shawshank redemption was the better movie.

:hi:

Coming Home was an outstanding film about the difficulties faces by wounded veterans adjusting to civilian life. The film had a beautiful love story, and it had a powerful antiwar message. I always suspected that it was that antiwar message that cost it the Oscar.

Than there are pretty much anywhere. :)

I have seen "Gladiator", though. I have to see "Traffic".