What Happened in Norway, Stayed in Norway

I didn't listen to Obama's speech. I just read parts on the internet and what I did read was impressive and above all thoughtful...even though I didn't agree with every thing he said. I guess my reaction is similar to this blogger.

"There are people who think presidential politics--from a voter's perspective--is about electing someone who will do exactly what you say and enact every single one of your priorities in exactly the same manner as you would.

And then there are people who think presidential politics--from a voter's perspective--is about electing someone who shares many of your priorities, but not all of them, who may not enact them as you would, and yet whose wisdom you trust. That, for me, is the point.

(. . .)

In that vein, I didn't object to George Bush because he claimed that there was "evil" in the world. I objected to George Bush because there was so much evil that he didn't see, and he was awful at prosecuting the evil he did see. I objected to George Bush's foreign policy because it married a freshman's view of idealism (Big talk on human rights) with a profane, dishonest take one realism (We don't torture.) It's weak to look two presidents, see them both use the word "evil," and then conclude that they're the same.

I expect Obama to be who he campaigned as. But more than that, I expect him to actually think about the world. I expect him to be curious, deliberative, and cool-headed. That's who he is. I often disagree with him. But I don't regret a thing."

What really surprises is how little press and attention his speech received. It wasn't even a page one story in today's NYTimes. I bet most Americans could care less that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize let alone pay any serious attention to what he said at the official award ceremony.