toejam on Oct 12 2009, 06:44 PM said:

I'm not sure if that's really an option for him now...voluntary refusal only happened twice- with Sartre and that Vietnamese guy....to decline now means he's actually not only not accepting the honour but also more importantly the responsibility that goes with it...many americans are outraged I think or at least divided between party lines but the international community are "hopeful"...so he can't run away now...if Martin Luther King's battle cry is the "Audacity of Faith". Obama's is the "Audacity of Hope"....

This is from the Nobel prize website (http://nobelprize.org/prize_announcements/peace/pea_questions_08.html):

"Question: Does Politics and Politcal Pressure play a role in the decision of the Nobel Prize and more importantly Nobel Peace Prize? If so, how? and by how much? Do lobbyists play a role in this? Thanks.

Answer: There is some lobbying for the Nobel Peace Prize, but almost all of it is in rather innocent form. Thus, it has become popular to collect as many signatures of support as possible both from persons with the right to make a nomination (the record here is 2.500 such signatures) or from just anyone (the record here is 750.000). None of these record-holders have received the Nobel Peace Prize."

I had heard a while back that in order to get the prize, there had to be some very serious lobbying going on. I do not think that his nomination was a suprise to him. However, if he was involved in the lobbying, they were backing him on winning the presidency first... which could explain that very long drawn out nomination thing with Hillary.

The more important question is... when will Casey get her Nobel Peace Prize? Do you need us to lobby for you?

V

....oh but V, if we think that politics and political pressure have nothing to do with the most "political" of all of the Nobel Prizes then I really deserve that Nobel Peace Prize.

And haven't you heard the latest? I'm up now for the mother earth award- this is the highest award I think a human female can get bec it encompasses everything.....I've already prepared the speech too.....my gosh, all this attention I'm getting....totally unnecessary but thanks for the lobbying thoughts..... now back to Obama- this thread is for him and his controversial prize, right? .....

awesome! at the beginning this poll pointed out that most people agreed on him getting the prize. now it's the opposite....

toejam on Oct 14 2009, 01:02 PM said:

well the question was:
"He is the only one who should get the award"

and for this "only" I guess the yes-votes are quite high I think. At least I myself had to think about it and I also could had voted no, as I could also imagine other people as possible laureates....

hobglobin on Oct 14 2009, 01:29 PM said:

and I also wonder if instead of the award going to Obama himself, folks could see it going to another American...that might have an influence in the voting too.....

well the question was:
"He is the only one who should get the award"

The 'only' was what tipped my vote. There are others who deserve recognition as well. Considering Ghandi was nominated five times and never won, I think that giving the award to Obama so soon after attaining Presidency was not well-considered. Other than that, I take no issue with the award.

maybe he deserves the prize, but definitly he may not be the only and best one

News Flash!!


OBAMA ATTENDS FOOTBALL GAME - WINS HEISMAN!!!

All people going round Obama and Obama, as if that counted, and it's a science forum...
There's a prize which deserves at least a mention this year, and I mean the telomere research!
I'm a fan of Blackburn's and I am happy. Also, look: Carol has actually been a PhD student back then. This is something new, eh?