Year: 2009

Obama’s Nobel Prize (II)

Just want to make it clear that I’m not siding with those who say President Obama should refuse the Nobel Peace Prize.

He should accept it with great humility, and make it clear that he understands it’s a goad for what he might accomplish — not a lifetime achievement award for a president who’s only been in office for nine months.

Refusing the award would merely compound the Nobel committee’s mistake with an even greater one. (Via Hub Blog, which notes that Jon Keller and David Kravitz want Obama to reject the Nobel.)

Obama’s Nobel Prize

obama_20091009I should be reading the papers and getting ready for class, but I just want to get this out there first. No doubt the topic will inspire a long string of comments, and probably a few of you will have more coherent thoughts than I do.

President Obama is a leader of extraordinary promise. I think he’s already accomplished a lot. His policies helped steer the worst economic crisis since the 1930s into something like a normal recession. He’s come closer to enacting comprehensive health-care reform than any previous president.

And, yes, his approach to foreign policy has combined pragmatism, cooperation and an orientation toward negotiation and peace that stands in stark contrast with the belligerent Bush-Cheney team. I’m also glad he’s rethinking his original desire to escalate in Afghanistan.

That said, I’m puzzled, to say the least, by his winning the Nobel Peace Prize. I think Obama might well have been Nobel-worthy in a couple of years, depending on what he’s able to accomplish with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with Iran and its nuclear aspirations, with the Afghanistan-Pakistan mess and with North Korea. And that’s assuming he can find willing negotiating partners.

For the Nobel committee to award its most prestigious honor to Obama at this early stage of his presidency, the members must have been thinking one of two things:

  • He deserves it for all sorts of symbolic reasons: he’s the first African-American president, he represents a clean break with George W. Bush and he’s reached out to the international community in a variety of ways.
  • He doesn’t really deserve it, but he should get it in order to give him ammunition (oops; bad word) against his critics and to provide some momentum to his peace-making efforts.

I don’t think either of those reasons are good enough.

Conservatives, needless to say, are going to have a field day with this, comparing it to previous Nobels they think were undeserving, such as those given to Jimmy Carter and Al Gore. By contrast, I think Gore and especially Carter were very deserving recipients who received the honor on the basis of many years of hard work.

Many liberals are going to be thrilled that Obama won, although the early buzz on the left, based solely on my monitoring of Twitter, is that at least some liberals are as perplexed as I am.

Not that Obama is the worst selection ever. Certainly there have been much more undeserving recipients, such as Yasser Arafat and Henry Kissinger. (Despite what some conservatives are claiming on Twitter, Adolf Hitler did not win the Nobel. Try looking it up, folks.)

Anyway — there you have it. Discuss among yourselves.

Deadline day for the Boston Globe sale

Tomorrow is the day that the New York Times Co. has set to accept final offers to sell the Boston Globe. And Media Nation is picking up some well-informed buzz that things are not going well with either of the two prospective buyers — a group led by former Globe executive Stephen Taylor or Platinum Equity, owner of the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Like any reader of the Globe, I have a rooting interest in this. I’d like to see the Taylors make a comeback. But even if they can pull this off, you have to wonder if they’ll be so under-capitalized that the cutting will resume almost immediately.

Dear Next Owner of the Boston Globe …

On the eve of what may be an announcement that the New York Times Co. is selling the Boston Globe, Boston.com editor David Beard weighs in with a smart piece for Poynter Online on “10 hopeful points about the future of journalism.”

Although perhaps Dave missed Dan Gillmor’s 11th rule.

Did Acorn help Al Franken win?

Mickey Kaus is excited about an opinion piece in the Star Tribune suggesting that U.S. Sen. Al Franken’s narrow victory over Norm Coleman may have been the result of Acorn voter-registration fraud.

For a long time now, the Acorn-obsessed right has struggled to explain how voter-registration fraud becomes ballot fraud. Well, here’s a golden opportunity. I’ve sent the following e-mail to Katherine Kersten, who wrote the Star Tribune piece in question:

Dear Ms. Kersten —

I would like to ask you a question about your commentary regarding Acorn and the Minnesota Senate race.

As has been reported pretty extensively, the Acorn voter-registration fraud consisted of field workers making up names so that they could get paid more. Your argument is based on the notion that some small percentage of those fraudulent names might have been used by real people who showed up at the polls on election day and cast ballots for Al Franken. You tell us that “Minnesota’s laws on proof of voter eligibility are notoriously loose.” I’ll take your word on that.

But what you don’t tell us is how it is even remotely conceivable that a field worker would write down a fake name — say, Peter Smith of 34 Jones Ave., St. Paul — and then some ineligible voter claiming to be Peter Smith of 34 Jones Ave., St. Paul, would then show up on election day and request a ballot. To me, at least, it makes no logical sense.

Could you help me out?

I plan to post your response on my blog, Media Nation.

Thank you,
Dan Kennedy

I’ll post Kersten’s response as soon as she sends it.

Please do not post any comments to this item. I’ve asked a question, and I want to wait for Kersten to reply.

Show us the money

Will the Taylor group really be able to pull off a deal to buy back the Boston Globe from the New York Times Co.? Today’s Globe piece on Stephen Taylor’s quest to acquire the paper his family sold in 1993 reports that he’s having some trouble scaring up enough money. Beth Healy writes:

Some wealthy Bostonians spurned Taylor’s early overtures, wary of investing in what they consider a dying industry, according to people involved in the bid. With final offers due tomorrow, Taylor is still scurrying to raise money. He has to convince investors he has what it takes to make it in a radically shifting newspaper landscape, despite having been out of the business for nearly a decade.

That fits with information I reported two weeks ago, when I wrote that the Taylor group was still trying to line up investors.

Meanwhile, the Boston Herald’s Jessica Heslam reports that the price of purchasing the Globe and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette may have risen substantially. Both Taylor and Platinum Equity, the only other serious bidder, have reportedly offered to pay $35 million and to assume $59 million in pension liabilities. Now, though, Heslam quotes anonymous “insiders” who say that the esimate of pension liabilities has nearly doubled, to $115 million.

Hard to tell what’s going on here. Heslam quotes a Times Co. spokeswoman who says something that sounds vaguely like a denial, but not really. So, for the moment, let’s proceed under the assumption that Heslam’s sources are right. Will this kill the deal? Especially with the under-capitalized Taylor bid?

It’s possible that the Times Co. will be forced to eat some of that $115 million, like Theo Epstein getting rid of another overpaid, under-performing shortstop. Even though the Globe carefully notes that it’s “conceivable the Times Co. won’t sell the paper,” Poynter Institute media analyst Rick Edmonds recently noted that the Times Co. would lose substantial tax advantages if it doesn’t sell by the end of 2009.

It will be fascinating to see what gets announced tomorrow. That is, if there’s an announcement.

Tweaking the comments feature

When I moved Media Nation from Blogger to WordPress in August, I quickly found that one feature actually got worse — posting comments became more difficult.

I just installed one feature you should find useful. Now, next to the “post” button, you’ll find a “preview” button, which will allow you to see what your comment will look like before you upload it.

This is especially useful if you’re entering hyperlink code by hand and want to make sure you’ve got it right — that is, if you’re typing:

<A HREF=”http://www.thephoenix.com”>Boston Phoenix</a>

Hit “preview” and you’ll see it as Boston Phoenix.