The Nobel Committee's decision to give President Obama the Peace Prize is a clear reflection of how frightened the world was by the Bush-Cheney doctrine of American unilateral, preemptive war. The award is a message most of all to us, the American electorate, that the world is watching what we do and that we should take care who we choose as our leaders.

We should take heed and support our President in the difficult days to come. Let us continue to urge him to do what is right, and be respectful when we disagree. And always thankful for his intelligence, his grace and his courage.

Joan--

I think you have it just about exactly right. But I believe one has to admire the strategy as well as the speech. I don't think that it would have helped to give this speech two months ago--now was the right time, after all the haranguing from the Republicans, and shortly before the real decisions are going to get made, in conference committee. And I also admire the strategy of going as far as possible to get support from some Republicans. I think the Obama people know that won't happen, but they want to be able to say that they did everything they could, and the Republicans just wouldn't support anything.

So it really is up to the Democrats. Will they climb on this man's back and let him lead them (and us) to the future? Or will they be trapped by their fear of losing their jobs and all the status, power, etc. comes with them. I wouldn't overestimate Obama's ability to "twist arms" and make Democrats vote with him; I realize he's no LBJ, but I also think that those days are mostly gone. As Mama Maybelle sings in Chicago, "Whatever happened to class?"

Glenn, I completely agree with everything you say and have been saying about torture. But your criticism of the Post story is unfair. The third paragraph says the question of whether torture elicited useful information can't be resolved. The next graph quotes someone saying that even if it does, it's wrong and can't be justified. The next quotes the guy who did the investigation saying they couldn't reach a conclusion. These are the same points you make in your piece.

You richly criticises the use of anonymous sources, then quote Jane Mayer who quotes an unnamed CIA person who says they could have gotten the same information with tea and crumpets.

Same deal. Everyone is saying what serves their interests. I don't find the Post article offensive just because it quotes people you and I disagree with.

@McKay

You are correct, but actually it's less than half as many.

According to Gabbidon and Greene, "Race and Crime (2d ed.) a preview of which is available at Google Books http://books.google.com/books?id=Ye77D9jgtOwC&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=who+is+convicted+of+a+felony+by+race&source=bl&ots=9fuBkRH_Wo&sig=fKNc1e1vBgt_l-ZT4DWV5XdkPEg&hl=en&ei=BhdqSpCSHo7SMtWerM8M&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4,

in 2006, 7,270,214 white people were arrested (70% of the total), while 2,924,724 black people were arrested (28% of the total). While this is a higher percentage of total arrests than their percentage of the population, the facts are that (1) white people commit more crime; and (2) the percentage of crime committed by black people, while higher than their percentage of the population, is not "vastly disproportionate" to their percentage of the population, particularly when you account for poverty, as you rightly point out.

@ ddeagler:

You say: "Whenever a politician, like the president at his press conference, states that black men are more likely to be stopped by police, or arrested or incarcerated, often he manages to omit saying that the reason for this is not just blatant racism but that, statistically speaking, black men commit a vastly disproportionate amount of the crime. This is not pleasant or pretty or PC. But it's true.

But it's not true. According to Gabbidon and Greene, "Race and Crime (2d ed.) a preview of which is available at Google Books http://books.google.com/books?id=Ye77D9jgtOwC&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=who+is+convicted+of+a+felony+by+race&source=bl&ots=9fuBkRH_Wo&sig=fKNc1e1vBgt_l-ZT4DWV5XdkPEg&hl=en&ei=BhdqSpCSHo7SMtWerM8M&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4,

in 2006, 7,270,214 white people were arrested (70% of the total), while 2,924,724 black people were arrested (28% of the total). While this is a higher percentage than their representation in the population, the facts are that (1) white people commit more crime; and (2) the percentage of crime committed by black people, while higher, is not "vastly disproportionate" to their percentage of the population.

I think it is just so refreshing and wonderful to have a President who realized that he had made a mistake and acted promptly and responsibility to deal with it. Classy, smart politically, just all around a good guy. My guess is that you have to go back to Jimmy Carter to find a President who would have done the same.