Rachel Maddow: The Nobel Peace Prize & Obama Derangement Syndrome

Run time: 11:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMJuEOaF84o   Posted on YouTube: October 10, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: October 10, 2009 By DU Member: Turborama Views on DU: 5627

 
Rachel gives a very good summary of what President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize means. She also puts it in proper perspective by reminding us of the nightmare we had to endure for the past 8 years and the angry old man we and the rest of the world dodged last November.


I reckon that if McCain/Palin had won we would be at war with Iran already and Afghanistan would still be on the back burner - possibly even run by the Taliban again by now.

:popcorn:

:loveya:

Thank you so much for posting this! :loveya:

I've always loved a beautiful woman's beautiful mind.

are like oil and water. They don't mix.

Cheering for America to fail. Railing against the world wanting an American president to succeed. Why has this country tolerated these lunatics for so long?

Those clips of John Bolton are scary! The man really is deranged. I like that Obama said the prize should be shared with all those who strive for peace in this world. And I hope the reaction of the rabid rightwing, further marginalizes them to outer limits of society where they belong.

Thanks Turborama. You do a great service by posting these clips for people who do not get a chance to see them.

K&R

Obama deserves the Nobel every bit as much as several others, and that it isn't merely an anti-Bush era prize. I'm sorry to say that even CBS has adopted the meme--it isn't just FOX news. They always have to have a controversy, don't they.

So many kudos to Rachael for setting the record straight.

K&R

I was waiting for someone to put that up on youtube. Rachel is just brilliant, thanks for sharing!

"By any reasonable measure ... ." Thanks Rachel, for marshalling the facts.

:kick: :toast: :applause: :applause:

"Obama Derangement Syndrome" indeed.

Just judging from some of the comments on DU about this, "Obama Derangement Syndrome" isn't only confined to freepers and dittoheads.

Seriously, some of the Liberals reactions were just disgusting.

I have been extremely critical about the peace prize to Obama. But Rachel lays out a great case, and yes, for the pluses on Obamas score sheet, he actually does deserve it. Just for even talking about getting rid of all nukes is enough really. I cant imagine the flak he will take from the military on that one. Think of all that money that wont flow if the nukes go away. Its a staggering amount, and its a first and easy step to trimming the rest of the military, which has to happen if we aren't going to go the military state route into the future. If we have a giant military, we will use it soon to compete for resources. Its that end game that can be prevented now-- frankly by hamstringing ourselves militarily so we are forced to use civilized means later on, because civilized means is usually a second choice for our country (lets face it), partially because we don't ever really need to do it the hard way (negotiation). So we don't.

When I think about why I reflexively think that Obama didn't deserve the Peace Prize, I realized that there was one early 'Fail' of Obama's that has haunted every move he has made since then-- every position, everything. That's the failure to see justice carried out against the obvious crimes of the Bush administration. Its not like an investigation is needed to gather facts. We all know the facts. We all know the crimes.
Yes, I understand the ideas around not being a single issue voter.
And Yes, I know this is politics.
And Yes, I know this is central method to Obama's approach on a lot of fronts.
And Yes, I know what the cost would have been to all other issues if this one had been pursued.

But.
This one issue seems to me to be central to the whole philosophy of government. Central to our constitution. Central to civic participation. Justice is the bedrock on which everything else exists.
You cant murder and lie and get away with it. And it shouldn't be bartered away, some things aren't negotiable. If everything is on the table, eventually you WILL barter everything away. Some things, like letting this slide, should have been off the table, damn the consequences. Everyone knows justice when they see it, and the dems will suffer a lot more for denying justice in this case than they would have seen for dispensing justice.

So yes, i remain a dem, and a progressive, but when I hear Obama speak, he is coming to me through a veil of my disgust at his failure in this issue. I think a lot of people have let it slide, and I think when people are doing that, you are lowering yourself to a staggering amount. We should have more dignity than that.

Two things that to me seem unexplained -

She failed to reconcile the difference between the Feb '08 nomation which was based upon Obama campaign promises - admittedly very lofty goals given the alternative to John McCain and the previous Bush Administration, ala John Bolton, Condosleeza Rice, Dick Cheney, et. al. and the panel's actual vote which must have taken place fairly recently. There were other worthy candidates in competition with Obama. So why did the Nobel panel vote for Obama given the disconnect between so many promises and the actual practices (escalating the War in Afghanistan, failure to close Guantanamo, et. al.) Yes, to talk about eliminating nukes is a worthwhile goal - but as many of you have pointed out - the process will be formidable. What about the nukes that Israel has? Actually having the will to follow through with such a goal and to take actions to achieve same would make a stronger case. Analogous to this is for the US to make some fundamental headway on cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Obama ran on a lot of promises - I would like to see more action behind those promises than I've seen.

The second thing Rachel failed to do was reflected in Obama's acceptance speech when he pointed out that there were many behind him work for peace. I just fail to see how soldiers deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan or other areas where US presence is felt overseas, are bringing peace.

:crazy:

Thanks for listening -

...to watch the reasoned explaination that Rachel Maddow expressed and to still not understand this award seems irrational to me...

I was away from a tv last night and missed the show. I was absolutely delighted the moment I heard the announcement and saddened that all Americans weren't pleased. I spent last night at the home of a Canadian citizen. When I got to her home the first thing she asked was if I'd heard. She was happy and expressed that to me. We then had a wonderful evening (with kids, her son-my daughter) discussing the vast benefits of living in Canada with their very good health care system (my friend has MS) and the absurdity of too many U.S. citizens.

good work. If we listened to the republicans you would think the award was ALWAYS given for achievement, rather than supporting those who strive with passion and skill for peace. Obama's humble acceptance was thoughtful and measured without ego. A call to action for us all.

K & R