Spot on. I wish we lived in a world where he could openly acknowledge this:
"I want to thank first and foremost my predecessor, George W. Bush, without whose service as a stark contrast, I could not have won this prize (nor, perhaps, the presidency)"
Worth noting that ol' Dubya was the only POTUS willing to appear publicly with the Dalai Lama, at the risk of offending China. Clinton didn't, tho' he did meet him, and Obama has refused to even meet him (see link on my other comment).
Google Tibetan history and see what sorts of "religious order" he wants to implement in Tibet. Chinese are an occupying force there, sure, but the Dalai Lama, if he was no the leader of Tibet, would absolutely deserve a coup and summary hanging.
Earlier visitors to Tibet commented on the theocratic despotism. In 1895, an Englishman, Dr. A. L. Waddell, wrote that the populace was under the “intolerable tyranny of monks” and the devil superstitions they had fashioned to terrorize the people. In 1904 Perceval Landon described the Dalai Lama’s rule as “an engine of oppression.” At about that time, another English traveler, Captain W.F.T. O’Connor, observed that “the great landowners and the priests… exercise each in their own dominion a despotic power from which there is no appeal,” while the people are “oppressed by the most monstrous growth of monasticism and priest-craft.” Tibetan rulers “invented degrading legends and stimulated a spirit of superstition” among the common people. In 1937, another visitor, Spencer Chapman, wrote, “The Lamaist monk does not spend his time in ministering to the people or educating them. . . . The beggar beside the road is nothing to the monk. Knowledge is the jealously guarded prerogative of the monasteries and is used to increase their influence and wealth.”24 As much as we might wish otherwise, feudal theocratic Tibet was a far cry from the romanticized Shangri La so enthusiastically nurtured by Buddhism’s western proselytes.
For many reasons, I have decided that I will not be the head of, or play any role in the government when Tibet becomes independent. The future head of the Tibetan Government must be someone popularly elected by the people. There are many advantages to such a step and it will enable us to become a true and complete democracy. I hope that these moves will allow the people of Tibet to have a clear say in determining the future of their country.
What contrast? Other than the fact that Obama doesn't snuggle up with the religious right, I don't see any significant difference between these two guys. A lot of perceived differences, sure. A D instead of an R, yeah. But judging by their far-reaching policy decisions, say, on war, personal freedom, privacy rights, transparency - not so much.
"I want to thank first and foremost my predecessor, George W. Bush, without whose service as a stark contrast, I could not have won this prize (nor, perhaps, the presidency)"