Who would you consider more worthy to win the Nobel Peace Prize? Obama OR Gandhi?
This is just too fishy to not notice.
Ghandi has been nominated 5 times and never won one..........Obama was in office for 11 days and was nominated and won the Nobel Peace Prize. That man has way too many people in his pocket to ever trust. What do you think about this?
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
"Alfred Nobel wrote that the prize should go to the person who has contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year," and President Obama was not in office the year previous to his nomination for the prize nor did he accomplish anything as Senator that made him worthy of this, once, presigious prize.
So to answer your question, Ghandi. And the poor soul is probably turning over in his grave right now, considering there were other nominees more worthy of this award than Obama, who won it for his promises. Since one of his promises was to do the right thing for the U.S. of America, Home of the brave, Home of the free, and another promise was to donate his $1.4 million prize to charity, the most charitable & right thing he could do is use every bit of that money to help pay back the national debt he helped create. Charity begins at Home
- 1 decade ago
There are somethings I believe that Obama said he would do since his Democratic campaign, the Nobel Peace Prize should go to someone who is fighting for better rights for those who have no platform to began with. This award is a result of what people in other countries call "Bush Era." Just the mere thought of the president of America changing the tactics of welcoming other countries has given Obama the Nobel prize. The committee basis their decision on the fact of what he might do while in office. Gandhi should have won, but at this point, the more popular pick is President Obama.
- athorgarakLv 41 decade ago
Actually Gandhi was the elected winner in '48, but he died before the announcement. So there was no announced winner in '48
The Nobel committee does not award the prize posthumously, but DOES pay posthumously, This has happened twice, when the person was alive when the announcement was made, but died prior to receiving the award.
Obama got the award for a Speech, nothing more, and we can be sure that even that came not from HIS pen, but from the pen of a political writer!
Here is a link to a few others who were nominated this year and all were infinitely more deserving than our prez!
- 1 decade ago
obviously Gandhi...but the whole nobel prize reward is pretty screwed up... I mean, they gave it to Henry Kissinger, mr. bomb cambodia to kingdom come, the guy who fervently acted in the Iraq, Yom Kippur, and other wars, a nobel peace prize, so I don't really believe the nobel prize counts for much.
Obama got chosen over a guy locked in jail sending emails out to the world telling what is happening and Obama (though I think he does have a lot of potential) got it in 11 days...
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- pepitoLv 61 decade ago
A couple of points to make about this.
1. The Nobel Committee admitted its mistake in never selecting Ghandi, and cited "divided nationalistic opinion" for the reason of its error.
2. Ghandi was going to receive the award in 1948, however was assassinated before he could receive it. The Nobel Committee does not give out posthumous awards.
- 1 decade ago
This isn't really answering your question, but I think Obama won it for just talking about peace, not making it. That man would probably win a Heisman trophy just for watching a college football game.
- 1 decade ago
Well duh, Gandhi should have won all five times he was nominated. I don't like politics, so I don't think anyone in office should win the Nobel prize, personally! Mahatma Gandhi was great, though...so he doesn't need to win the Nobel prize to earn respect.
- sweet_emotionLv 41 decade ago
I'm gonna go w/President Obama because he plays in a more dangerous sand box with much higher stakes to the world. Ghandi certainly has a mention if not a win in this area though.
The liars throw out their canard that nothing has been accomplished to ‘win the prize’. I am going to have to go with what the Nobel committee said.... that its decision to honor the president was motivated by “Obama's initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism”. All things he has done repeatedly.
Nominees for the Nobel award are nominated by February 12, assessment & voting up to October.
In a word = ‘initiatives’! These initiatives have been delivered by President Obama in very powerful venues & in very clear tones. They were a large part of his 2-year campaign leading up to his election and were well received on a National & International stage prior to his election victory. In addition, the President has 'walked the talk' in meetings with NATO, UN, and various Nations, as well as within the United States. Repeatedly.
This is what Candidate Obama campaigned on, largely what the voters elected him for, what he has repeatedly pursued, and what those more intellectually honest than conservatives have recognized him for. Remember – America’s image was a big problem during the election – and we wanted it fixed.
Had President Obama not won the election, candidate Obama would have probably won the Nobel Peace Prize anyway.
So, once again, conservatives, in their hatred for the man that rightfully called their President out when they should have but wouldn’t, stand with Hammas & the Taliban against America’s prestige. Whinners – not a pretty sight – and normally not associated with Americans. The stench of it sickens me. Conservatives are just 1 more group standing with Hammas & the Taliban. Don’t bet against America or Americans & that includes our President, the President of the UNITED States!
And U.S. 'news' agencies run like little squeling school girls with the minority crazies of a minority cult party.
- EliseLv 41 decade ago
I think its ridiculous ridiculous ridiculous. he has done NOTHING to deserve it! I don't think he's a bad person or anything, but what has he done to get this? its just absurd! this tarnishes the award for all the past winners because now its not as respectable or valid. i just can't believe they gave it to him...ridiculous.Source(s): God bless! (who do you think should have gotten it though...Angelina Jolie? who else is out there doing good things?? I can't think of anyone but then again I'm young and don't read the news that much...)
- Anonymous1 decade ago
He managed not to mudsling in his campaign more than twice per speech, isn't that why he won?