From my comments on “Politico’s Arena”:http://www.politico.com/arena/ today, here’s my take on the _politics_ of “Obama’s Nobel speech”:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/world/europe/11prexy.html:
bq. Winning the prize this early in his presidency put Obama in a very difficult situation politically. Turning it down would have made him look arrogant and even “rude”:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/09/obama-nobel-peace-prize-snub. Accepting the prize, however, held open the possibility of making him look arrogant and self-satisfied at a time when Americans continue to suffer through hard economic times at home. Judging by the generally praiseworthy responses of our more politically outspoken Arena contributors on both sides of the aisle, he seems to have dodged a bullet politically here by giving (another) good speech that will most likely keep the prize from eating up more than a news cycle or two, which in some ways is the best for which he could have hoped. Yes, as “Stephen Walt”:http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Stephen_M__Walt_016E551A-2EDA-4709-84A8-5FC4193491CA.html notes, it is not really news at this point that Obama can give a good speech, but for a president who had to start his presidency by inheriting two difficult wars plus the nastiest economic recession since the Great Depression, it is certainly not a bad tool to have in his arsenal.
For more reactions to the content of the speech, see “here”:http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Jeff_Shesol_72AE2BE7-E004-4016-ADF8-07246F65A087.html, “here”:http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Robert_Kagan_765AA3B7-E28D-4F99-B052-412C7518CEFC.html, and “here”:http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Bradley_A__Blakeman_8006C54B-D24C-4202-B3D8-A05BB20F8851.html.