IgNobel

Neil Clark writes:

A Nobel Peace Prize winner using his acceptance speech to justify war?

The same Peace Prize winner citing NATO’s brutal intervention in the Balkans in the 1990s as an example of a 'just war’?

It’s beyond Orwellian. We have a Noble peace prize winner, who is so committed to peace that he won’t even sign a landmine ban.

At least Obama conceded that there were many people more deserving of the prize than himself. Hundreds of millions of people in fact.

The problem with Obama is not that he's a wicked man, but that he's the prisoner of a wicked, corrupt system. As commenter Deloki puts it in the First Post:

"Silly naive people to believe that the elected President of the USA has any say over policy. The people who financed and effectively "bought him", are the ones who decide, not the front man reading pre-prepared speeches. The same applies to Tony Blair who in return for doing what he was told, has a wonderful future ahead of him, clear up the little nonsense and misunderstanding about Iraq and then he can move on to greater things. To believe that there is "democracy" in the USA or Europe is really dumb, for it does not matter which party wins an election, the people with the money remain the same and it is they that "call the shots"."

Obama's transformation into LBJ continues apace. For Civil Rights, read healthcare. But for Vietnam, read Afghanistan. Where is the primary challenger to remind him that the people who voted for him were as foreign policy realist as they were economically populist, and morally and socially conservative? If healthcare ends up either without the Stupak Amendment (not going to happen) or without the public option (only too plausible), then, as surely as in Afghanistan, the nominee may as well have been Clinton. Which means that the winner may as well have been McCain.