Nobel Oblige: In Peace Prize, careful what you (don’t) wish for

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: Words do matter after all. And maybe he actually is the biggest celebrity in the world.
Less than nine months into a presidency marked of late by frustration, the Nobel Peace Prize voters have made a judgment that validates the president’s vision, conferring the top honors a politician can hope to receive long before his record is established.

In a true shocker (no advance word at the White House; Press Secretary Robert Gibbs woke a “humbled” president with the news at 6 am ET), the Nobel committee is honoring President Obama’s “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” (Yes, efforts.)

“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given his people hope for a better future,” reads the statement from the Nobel Committee, which will make the award in Oslo Dec. 10. (Yes, hope.)

A little like getting a lifetime achievement award before you’ve lived much of your lifetime? (And wouldn’t you love to get former President Bill Clinton’s reaction to the news — his real, first-blush reaction?)

Geir Lundestad, director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, on the unanimous decision to honor a president who’d been in office all of 11 days when the Nobel nomination window closed: “He has inspired the world with his vision of a world without nuclear arms. He has changed the US climate policies dramatically. And there’s a whole list,” he told ABC’s Diane Sawyer on “Good Morning America” Friday.

For Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize is an enormous boost on the international stage, with the most immediate implications, the White House hopes, in isolating Iran and North Korea.

Coming just a week after the Denmark debacle, an embarrassment for a jet-lagged president, this is surely a nice one to add to the mantle.

“The Olympic gold of international diplomacy,” Diane Sawyer said on “GMA.”

“A lot more fun to make that call than the one that came into Air Force One last week from Copenhagen,” said ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.

(Two aides told Stephanopoulos they thought they were being “punk’d”: “It’s not April 1st, is it?” said one.)

This is for real — yet this prize may also reinforce perceptions that aren’t particularly helpful to a president who’s at critical inflection points on his top domestic and foreign policy challenges.

Nobel Prizes cement legacies — they don’t create them. (And can you imagine a Peace Prize laureate escalating a war weeks or months after winning the honor? Will the Nobel committee want its money back?) Not to argue that winning a Nobel is anything less than a grand accomplishment — but will this contribute to a debate over what it is that President Obama has already accomplished? Even leaving aside the predictable talking point (already gaining currency on talk radio) that this is what you win for criticizing America on the world stage, does “Saturday Night Live” relish the opportunity to make a Nobel Prize the first item on the president’s checklist to get done? All this before Guantanamo is closed, before the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan are won, before nuclear stand-offs with Iran and North Korea are resolved, and before the United States takes a true position of leadership on climate change. The AP’s Jennifer Love: “The prize seems to be more for Obama’s promise his performance. Work on the president’s ambitious agenda, both at home and abroad, is barely underway, much less finished. He has no standout moment of victory that would seem to warrant a verdict as sweeping as that issued by the Nobel committee.” Reuters: “A surprised world greeted the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to U.S. President Barack Obama with a mixture of praise and skepticism on Friday.” “With American forces deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama’s name had not figured in speculation about the winner until minutes before the prize was announced here,” Walter Gibbs and Alan Cowell write in The New York Times. Ana Marie Cox, via Twitter: “Apparently Nobel prizes now being awarded to anyone who is not George Bush.”

From Obama’s peace, to Obama’s war: 40,000 troops, it turns out, is the “middle” option from Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

ABC’s Martha Raddatz had the scoop: “One path is not to send anymore troops to Afghanistan, considered a ‘high risk option.’ The second is to send 40,000 troops, and the third calls for a major increase in troops, far more than 40,000. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, according to the source, recommends the ‘middle’ option of 40,000 as the minimum number needed to have a chance of success in Afghanistan (surely understanding that not only would the much higher number be impossible to get approved but impossible to support, given a military that is stretched thin).”

“The troop request is expected to be deliberated today at Mr. Obama’s fifth cabinet-level meeting of his war council amid indications of growing official unease about such a significant escalation,” The Wall Street Journal’s Peter Spiegel and Yochi J. Dreazen report. “It is rather common in military planning … to discuss three different scenarios in order to illustrate why the middle option is preferable option.”

Insightful words — pre-Nobel — from Bob Shrum, in The Week: “In the presidency, past performance is not rewarded. There’s a lot on the line in Afghanistan — maybe the whole Obama presidency. Let’s hope he gets this one right, too.”

Who wouldn’t love to wave a Peace Prize in arguing their case? “Key Democrats on Capitol Hill warned Thursday that a decision by President Obama to send more troops to Afghanistan could trigger an uprising within the party, possibly including an attempt to cut off funds for the buildup,” James Oliphant and Richard Simon write in the Los Angeles Times. 

Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa.: “The public is worn out by war. . . . The troops, no matter what the military says, are exhausted.”

Glimpses of a new strategy: “As it reviews its Afghanistan policy for the second time this year, the Obama administration has concluded that the Taliban cannot be eliminated as a political or military movement, regardless of how many combat forces are sent into battle,” Scott Wilson reports in The Washington Post. “Some inside the White House have cited Hezbollah, the armed Lebanese political movement, as an example of what the Taliban could become. Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government, but the group has political support within Lebanon and participates, sometimes through intimidation, in the political process.”

Back at home — new momentum on health care, but momentum doesn’t necessarily mean votes.

This is all that’s left? “Now the challenge for the White House and Democratic leaders is to rewrite [the Finance Committee bill] by Christmas in ways that can command a congressional majority, without running afoul of administration specifications,” the AP’s David Espo reports.

Not a fan: “Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not among those praising Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) for bringing his healthcare bill in well under President Barack Obama’s $900 billion limit,” The Hill’s Mike Soraghan and Jared Allen report. “Pelosi (D-Calif.), an advocate of the government-run health insurance option left out of the Senate Finance Committee chairman’s bill, criticized the means by which Baucus kept costs down.” Hearing this more and more: “Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) revived a push for a public health-insurance plan to compete with private insurers, proposing a federal plan that states could opt out of,” The Wall Street Journal’s Greg Hitt and Janet Adamy report. “Senate and White House negotiators are looking at the Schumer idea and others as they craft a bill to bring to the Senate floor.”From an e-mail going out Friday, from Organizing for America, to Republicans and independents on the OFA list: “Thankfully, a few prominent Republicans — like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bob Dole, and former Majority Leader Bill Frist — are speaking out for reform. And while the GOP leadership in D.C. is still adamantly opposing the President, the media is starting to get the idea that that’s not where many of us stand. But to break through, we need the nationwide groundswell of Republicans and independents supporting reform to be much more visible. That’s why I’m writing a letter to the editor of my local paper…” Also new from the DNC today: A new series targeting “The Faces of the GOP.” First on The Note blog: “The Democratic National Committee today is launching a new initiative aimed at highlighting controversial comments and votes by leading Republicans. . . .  The first such video, targeting Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, stings together votes and statement in an attempt to portray an out-of-the-mainstream politician who has become a regular GOP presence in TV appearances.”

See the King video HERE.

First of many passes on why 2009 matters: “The latest Washington Post poll of the Virginia gubernatorial race represents more than bad news for Democratic nominee R. Creigh Deeds. The findings paint a portrait of the electorate that, if replicated elsewhere, stands as a warning sign for President Obama and Democrats who will be running in next year’s midterm elections,” Dan Balz and Anne E. Kornblut write in the Post.

Why 2009 might matter on the other side: “Sarah Palin stands ready to stump for the Republican gubernatorial candidates running in the two most closely-watched campaigns in the country this fall, but neither seems to want her help,” Politico’s Jonathan Martin writes.

The heat is up on Charlie Rangel — with an announcement from the ethics committee that’s curious for its timing: “The House ethics committee announced today that members have voted to expand their inquiry into House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel’s financial irregularities, to include changes he made to financial disclosure statements. It’s the latest in several expansions of the Rangel probe over the past year, and it comes as Republicans are stepping up pressure on Democrats to remove Rangel, D-N.Y., from his powerful post atop the tax-writing committee.”

Scheduled long before the Nobel announcement: Friday afternoon, the president and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner will hold an event in the East Room where they will call on Americans to stand up to the opponents of a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

An administration official tells ABC’s Sunlen Miller: “The Administration announced a sweeping regulatory reform package in June that includes a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency that would stand up for the interests of consumers. Since then opponents have attempted to discredit the importance of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency to the millions of Americans who have borne the brunt of the near collapse of the financial industry. President Obama will send a strong message in his remarks that the American people should not be silent while special interests work to defeat an agency standing up for consumers.”

Driving clicks Friday: New photos posted to WhiteHouse.gov — with some serious (and not-so-serious) Oval Office actions shots.

Breaking up is hard to do — but the SEIU lets Paul Simon help explain the Chamber of Commerce’s recent trips to splitsville.

Coming up on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” Sunday: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.; Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass.; and retired Gen. Jack Keane. Plus, a full discussion on the implications of the president’s Nobel Peace Prize with the roundtable: Arianna Huffington, Nicolle Wallace, Donna Brazile, and George Will.

The Kicker:

“I’d rather have company.” — Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, on being the most-watched vote on health care.

“The fact of the matter is, the guy is on the right track.” — Former Gov. Jeb Bush, R-Fla., on President Obama’s education policies.

For up-to-the-minute political updates check out The Note’s blog . . . all day every day:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/