I agree with the
article.
The Nobel prize reminds me of another one that was awarded some 38 years ago, to a person, who, at the time had few accomplishments and fewer measurable contributions towards peace. Perhaps some may still remember Willy Brandt. I recall, since at the time I was daily on-call to go to Germany.
To those who expect that Obama would have to sweep down and somehow bring world peace before earning the prize, be reminded that it is some time since a sitting president has walked a thin line, and taken the high road in an incredibly complex world situation, with some hope of a future without war.
To the matter of hero worship... no! I despise the implicit quid pro quo between government and the elite and the powerful, though I cannot even envision a president at constant swordspoint with congress and the Washington establishment.
We have a very long way to go, but back to the initial subject of this thread... As the criticisms mount, how would Doug, or any of our naysayers see a better outcome on those subjects that have been so criticized. What kind of congressional support and how?
I am angry about many of the appointments... Paulson, Bernancke, Geithner et al, but can only wonder what alternatives might have passed through the system. I respect Ron Paul, but he would be a totally ineffective president.
And so, is it better to light one candle, than to curse the darkness?
