I never understood the phrase, “you can’t win for losing.” Not really. I assume that it implies something like “without bad luck, you’d have no luck at all,” the thought that some people are having such a hard time in life that they would only ever win anything if we gave out awards for Best Loser.
Obama recently lost his bid to help Chicago host the Olympics, but he clearly is a “winner,” and that was even before he beat McCain in the last presidential election.
But the Nobel folks have taken his winningness to entirely new heights, and some detractors are confused (and insulted) by their recent decision — an attempt, some say, to counteract that Olympic snub or to thumb noses at the last Bush regime.
My brainstorm colleague Laurie Fendrich has already beaten me to the punch with her provocative and “political” contextualization of this morning’s Nobel announcement. But I still wanted to add another inflection to this morning’s Obama buzz, and it is predicated on the twitterati’s tongue-in-cheek responses to Obama’s newest win.
In a thread called ReasonsBHHwonNPP, here are some of the TwitterWorld’s answers:
Because he fostered a friendship between a black professor and a white police officer.
For restoring US rep because they couldn’t kick Bush a Nobel War prize on the way out the door.
Because he didn’t smack Joe Wilson.
Because a beer in the rose garden is a revolutionary way to broker peace.
Because he has directed american military might toward our common enemy: the Moon.
Because the Arizona State University board of trustees weren’t voting.
Because going for the Nobel Prize is like a race and well, he is half Kenyan.
Because anyone who has to deal w/Am Politics tday & hasnt punched anyone in the face deserves it.
And I know that Chronicle readers could undoubtedly add some zingers of their own. Indeed, Obama probably would have preferred not winning this particular prize, just because so many people are going to spend their time further demonizing him for it.
“Don’t hate the playa,” hip-hop MCs advise. “Hate the game.” That’s another colloquial saying that seems very appropriate today.
2 Responses to Obama Can’t Lose for Winning
ex_ag - October 9, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Indeed, I don’t hate the playa, having voted for him and supported his goals. And I still support his goals.But there is something that grates here. Along with Lech Walesa’s surprise and my own indignation over the Nobel Committee’s continual neglect of Vaclav Havel and others like him who have literally staked their lives on their beliefs, there is a sense–at least to me–of hypocrisy about accepting an award prior to earning it.This is especially relevant following so soon after President Obama insisted, to our nation’s schoolchildren, that hard work is necessary to succeed. That speech was truly an American speech–full of the Puritan ideals we recognize as our national heritage. Yet, now we see the same man set to reap fruit that he has not yet sown. How shall we explain this to those same schoolchildren who were told they must work for their success?
stinkcat - October 9, 2009 at 5:41 pm
While I didn’t vote for him, I do think it would be more prudent to wait a few years and see if he has any real effects on peace in the world.