i'll take the accolades too

There is really no way to describe the Republican reaction to Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize other than abject insanity. Granted, given the fact that Obama has been in office for a mere 9 months, the choice was certainly political (and does make one wonder whether the Committee either has absolutely no comprehension of American politics or harbors a wish for Obama's demise). Regardless, I had no idea what an overwhelming threat international approval posed for the United States.

In typical fashion, Limbaugh goes after Obama, "the Nobel people" and the rest of the world by boiling the entire process down to its core: it is an attempt to, essentially, cut off the United States' balls. He accused Obama of "basically emasculating this country" and the Nobel committee of attempting "to neuter the United States of America. They've done it by rewarding the pacifist." (No, not that! That might be even worse than l-word!) He also, in a shout-out to the Birther movement, referred to Obama as "the second Kenyan to win." Glenn Beck on the other hand took the opportunity to bizarrely suggest that the Nobel Peace Prize "should be given to the Tea Party goers and the 9-12 Project." My favorite Republican response, however, may have to be that of Senator Inhofe who said:

This just reemphasizes how this president has moved the United States from a foreign policy of strong national defense to one based on multinational cooperation. That is the kind of change that the Nobel committee believes in.

The Nobel committee believes in a foreign policy based on multinational cooperation?? It does not get much worse than that, folks.

In the midst of this absurdity, however, hats off to PJ Crawley of the State Department for summing up an appropriate response to the Republican charges:

Certainly from our standpoint, this gives us a sense of momentum — when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes.

words words words

Yesterday at a fundraiser for the Human Rights Campaign, Obama renewed his pledge to put an end to the absurdity of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. The program has recently come under attack from an unusual source--an airforce colonel, Om Prakash, whose article citing the law's negative impact and urging its imminent repeal won the 2009 Secretary of Defense National Security Essay contest. Although this earlier turn of events might indicate an legitimate shift in the military's attitude toward homosexuals serving openly in the military, Obama's restatement of his commitment to ending the policy--which failed to present a timetable for doing so--appears to be more of the same. Liberals (or progressives, as the Democrats like to call us when they deign to associate with our ilk) have been disappointed time and time again by Obama's reluctance to push certain issues--gay and lesbian rights, the public option--combined with his apparent about-face on others (see bill, "media shield").

In some ways, of course, this is just good politics--who else will the lefty likes of MoveOn.org vote for? But, on the other hand, Obama got elected not only by appealing to moderates, but in large part by sparking the passions of people (largely of liberal bent) who labored tirelessly to convince the rest of the country that voting for black man who shares a Muslim middle name with a recently executed enemy of the United States wasn't such a bad idea after all. The longer Obama stalls on increasingly uncontroversial issues like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the more he risks alienating those supporters. Of course, they'll still cast their vote for him in 2012, but they won't campaign doggedly for him--and, as a leader who is (through little fault of his own) presiding over the worst recession in a generation, that's not a chance he should be too eager to take.