The backlash has become so polarized (and so utterly ridiculous) that the Nobel Prize Jury felt compelled to defend its choice. Quite eloquently and successfully, I might add.
To those who say a Nobel is too much too soon in Obama's young presidency, "We simply disagree ... He got the prize for what he has done," committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland told The Associated Press by telephone from Strasbourg, France, where he was attending meetings of the Council of Europe.The Jury went on to report that the vote was unanimous. Which they said is a rarity. But of course, our Repugnicant Party isn't gonna take that lying down. There's no issue that they can't play politics with and drag through their slime.
Jagland singled out Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe.
"All these things have contributed to — I wouldn't say a safer world — but a world with less tension," he said.
The Nobel Prize went to a Democrat. So it's irrelevant.
If it were to be awarded to a Republican (pretend for a moment that a worthy one could be found), that Republican would turn the award down. Because it's irrelevant, right? Wait, if it were to be awarded to a Republican, then it wouldn't be irrelevant, you say? NOW I understand.
The Nobel Jury explains it far better than I can:
"Alfred Nobel wrote that the prize should go to the person who has contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year," Jagland said.
"Who has done more for that than Barack Obama?"
Who indeed?
