I'm glad the Hitler comparison, posted in passing, hasn't caused the stir it might have on other days, because frankly, it's completely vacuous and throwaway. To even try and engage with or refute it would be as idiotic as saying it in the first place.

I'm sorry, though: Obama is the commander-in-chief of - proud of it in a patriotic sense or not, which should have no bearing on the objective situation - a country currently active in an escalating illegal imperialist war. Bombing Afghan civilian populations in the manner in which this administration is currently and actively endorsing is by definition a war crime. Being the head of a democracy or "the land of freedom" doesn't change that.

But the prize itself has always been a bit farcical, a representative 'prize' to show international relations and interests. It's been used in the past as a (banal) critique of US foreign policy, and now it's being used as the very opposite. It's been noted in this thread that Obama is popular in Europe, and it's largely true but we should limit his appeal in general to the ruling circles.

What this year's prize shows is a sharp and typically fickle (re)turn towards multilateralism; it's actually the very opposite of a peace prize. Yes: it's a conscious endorsement of further militarism, further serving the interests of various nations' ruling stratums. If Obama is willing to let them, everyone in bourgeois Europe wants to get in bed with him.

It's an absolute fucking travesty.