In the video, the second of his presidency directed at Iran, Obama said that the United States’ offer of diplomatic dialogue still stands but that the Iranian government has chosen isolation. He said the U.S. believes in the dignity of every human being.

The White House released the video late Friday, timing it, as it did last year, to coincide with Nowruz, a 12-day holiday celebrating the arrival of spring and the beginning of the new year on the Persian calendar. The video comes as the United States has hit a rough patch in its relationships in the region, particularly with Israel.

“The United States believes in the dignity of every human being and an international order that bends the arc of history in the direction of justice – a future where Iranians can exercise their rights, to participate fully in the global economy and enrich the world through educational and cultural exchanges beyond Iran’s borders,” Obama said in the video, which had Farsi subtitles.

Obama does not mince words in his criticism of Iran’s leadership:

For reasons known only to them, the leaders of Iran have shown themselves unable to answer that question. You have refused good faith proposals from the international community. They have turned their backs on a pathway that would bring more opportunity to all Iranians, and allow a great civilization to take its rightful place in the community of nations. Faced with an extended hand, Iran’s leaders have shown only a clenched fist.

Last June, the world watched with admiration, as Iranians sought to exercise their universal right to be heard. But tragically, the aspirations of the Iranian people were also met with a clenched fist, as people marching silently were beaten with batons; political prisoners were rounded up and abused; absurd and false accusations were leveled against the United States and the West; and people everywhere were horrified by the video of a young woman killed in the street.

The United States does not meddle in Iran’s internal affairs. Our commitment – our responsibility – is to stand up for those rights that should be universal to all human beings. That includes the right to speak freely, to assemble without fear; the right to the equal administration of justice, and to express your views without facing retribution against you or your families.

I want the Iranian people to know what my country stands for. The United States believes in the dignity of every human being, and an international order that bends the arc of history in the direction of justice – a future where Iranians can exercise their rights, to participate fully in the global economy, and enrich the world through educational and cultural exchanges beyond Iran’s borders. That is the future that we seek. That is what America is for.

That is why, even as we continue to have differences with the Iranian government, we will sustain our commitment to a more hopeful future for the Iranian people.  For instance, by increasing opportunities for educational exchanges so that Iranian students can come to our colleges and universities and to our efforts to ensure that Iranians can have access to the software and Internet technology that will enable them to communicate with each other, and with the world without fear of censorship.

Finally, let me be clear: we are working with the international community to hold the Iranian government accountable because they refuse to live up to their international obligations. But our offer of comprehensive diplomatic contacts and dialogue stands. Indeed, over the course of the last year, it is the Iranian government that has chosen to isolate itself, and to choose a self-defeating focus on the past over a commitment to build a better future.

Full transcript of his remarks available here.

According to the BBC:

It is unclear who would accept the prize if the internet were to win.

Internet for Peace, set up to help support the nomination of the internet, says the prize would be “a Nobel for each and every one of us”.

The questions had been e-mailed to the U.S. Embassy and were read aloud by U.S. Ambassador Jon Huntsman: “In a country with 350 million Internet users and 60 million bloggers, do you know of the firewall?” And second, “Should we be able to use Twitter freely?”

Obama’s response was polite – it did not directly criticize the host country’s government – but firm in its defense of non-censorship:

Well, first of all, let me say that I have never used Twitter.  I noticed that young people — they’re very busy with all these electronics. My thumbs are too clumsy to type in things on the phone. But I am a big believer in technology and I’m a big believer in openness when it comes to the flow of information. I think that the more freely information flows, the stronger the society becomes, because then citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable. They can begin to think for themselves. That generates new ideas. It encourages creativity.

And so I’ve always been a strong supporter of open Internet use. I’m a big supporter of non-censorship. This is part of the tradition of the United States that I discussed before, and I recognize that different countries have different traditions. I can tell you that in the United States, the fact that we have free Internet — or unrestricted Internet access is a source of strength, and I think should be encouraged.

Now, I should tell you, I should be honest, as President of the United States, there are times where I wish information didn’t flow so freely because then I wouldn’t have to listen to people criticizing me all the time. I think people naturally are — when they’re in positions of power sometimes thinks, oh, how could that person say that about me, or that’s irresponsible, or — but the truth is that because in the United States information is free, and I have a lot of critics in the United States who can say all kinds of things about me, I actually think that that makes our democracy stronger and it makes me a better leader because it forces me to hear opinions that I don’t want to hear. It forces me to examine what I’m doing on a day-to-day basis to see, am I really doing the very best that I could be doing for the people of the United States.

And I think the Internet has become an even more powerful tool for that kind of citizen participation.  In fact, one of the reasons that I won the presidency was because we were able to mobilize young people like yourself to get involved through the Internet. Initially, nobody thought we could win because we didn’t have necessarily the most wealthy supporters; we didn’t have the most powerful political brokers. But through the Internet, people became excited about our campaign and they started to organize and meet and set up campaign activities and events and rallies. And it really ended up creating the kind of bottom-up movement that allowed us to do very well.

Now, that’s not just true in — for government and politics. It’s also true for business. You think about a company like Google that only 20 years ago was — less than 20 years ago was the idea of a couple of people not much older than you. It was a science project.  And suddenly because of the Internet, they were able to create an industry that has revolutionized commerce all around the world. So if it had not been for the freedom and the openness that the Internet allows, Google wouldn’t exist.

So I’m a big supporter of not restricting Internet use, Internet access, other information technologies like Twitter. The more open we are, the more we can communicate. And it also helps to draw the world together.

Think about — when I think about my daughters, Malia and Sasha — one is 11, one is 8 — from their room, they can get on the Internet and they can travel to Shanghai. They can go anyplace in the world and they can learn about anything they want to learn about.  And that’s just an enormous power that they have. And that helps, I think, promote the kind of understanding that we talked about.

Now, as I said before, there’s always a downside to technology.  It also means that terrorists are able to organize on the Internet in ways that they might not have been able to do before. Extremists can mobilize. And so there’s some price that you pay for openness, there’s no denying that. But I think that the good outweighs the bad so much that it’s better to maintain that openness. And that’s part of why I’m so glad that the Internet was part of this forum. Okay?

As noted by the New York Times Lede blog, the fact that Obama answered that question was probably no coincidence:

Chris Hogg, a BBC correspondent in Shanghai, suggested that it was significant that this question was not asked by one of the students in the room — who were, apparently, carefully chosen and generally asked questions in line with state policy — but came from an anonymous Internet user writing on the Web site of the American Embassy.

The president asking his ambassador to read out a question on Chinese censorship in this forum seemed to be just as clearly staged as the moment last summer when he called on Nico Pitney of The Huffington Post at a news conference, saying that he knew that he had a question for him from the Iranian blogosphere. It seems quite possible that Mr. Obama wanted — in a forum that the White House streamed live, with Chinese translation, on its Web site — to both address and push at the boundaries of the Chinese system of state censorship of the Internet.

China Digital Times, which monitors the Chinese Web from Berkeley, reported that some Chinese bloggers saluted the president’s effort to address online censorship. One Twitter user, @philfenghan, wrote: “I will no[t] forget this morning, I heard, on my shaky Internet connection, a question about our own freedom which only a foreign leader can discuss.”

Modi, who is perhaps best known for his role in the movie “Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle,” was hired by the White House to do outreach to the Asian as well as arts communities. He started work in July. Penn is well suited for building a bridge to those communities; he campaigned for Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign and was a member of his National Arts Policy Committee. And he also taught classes in the Asian American Studies Program at the University of Pennsylvania, “Images of Asian Americans in the Media” and “Contemporary American Teen Films.”

Modi described the new White House job in the Television Without Pity blog in April:

“The job itself is that I will be an associate director in the White House Office of Public Liaison, and what the OPL does is similar in a sense to what I was doing on the campaign. What they try and do is take the administration itself out of Washington, so they go into communities across the country, continue the sorts of dialogue people had started during the campaign and basically ensure that a bunch of citizens’ views about their elected officials, about their government are all happening and that they’re working effectively. Make sure that a lot of these new voices that have emerged — especially during the campaign season — are brought to the table — Democrats, Republicans, everyone in between – and to build those relationships and kind of embody the types of changes that President Obama had run on.”

In addition to observing the festival at the White House, Obama also spoke to celebrants in a video, which Modi included in his blog post:

“While this is a time for celebration, it’s also a time for contemplation when we remember those who are less fortunate. . . . Those who don’t enjoy the same rights to speak and worship freely and make of their lives what they wish. Our hearts are with them not just today but every day. And at this sacred time of year let us join together across denominations, religions and cultures to make a habit of empathy and reach out to those most in need.”

Bono makes particular note of Obama’s goal of eradicating extreme poverty. Bono believes that goal, along with the president’s work on nuclear proliferation, climate change, Middle East relations and domestic issues like job creation and health care, constitute “rebranding in action.” Here is an excerpt:

“So here’s why I think the virtual Obama is the real Obama, and why I think the man might deserve the hype. It starts with a quotation from a speech he gave at the United Nations last month:

“We will support the Millennium Development Goals, and approach next year’s summit with a global plan to make them a reality. And we will set our sights on the eradication of extreme poverty in our time.”

“They’re not my words, they’re your president’s. If they’re not familiar, it’s because they didn’t make many headlines. But for me, these 36 words are why I believe Mr. Obama could well be a force for peace and prosperity — if the words signal action.

“The millennium goals, for those of you who don’t know, are a persistent nag of a noble, global compact. They’re a set of commitments we all made nine years ago whose goal is to halve extreme poverty by 2015. Barack Obama wasn’t there in 2000, but he’s there now. Indeed he’s gone further — all the way, in fact. Halve it, he says, then end it.

“Many have spoken about the need for a rebranding of America. Rebrand, restart, reboot. In my view these 36 words, alongside the administration’s approach to fighting nuclear proliferation and climate change, improving relations in the Middle East and, by the way, creating jobs and providing health care at home, are rebranding in action.

“These new steps — and those 36 words — remind the world that America is not just a country but an idea, a great idea about opportunity for all and responsibility to your fellow man.”

Bono also made note of America’s leap to the top of the Nations Brand Index survey:

“America shouldn’t turn up its national nose at popularity contests. In the same week that Mr. Obama won the Nobel, the United States was ranked as the most admired country in the world, leapfrogging from seventh to the top of the Nation Brands Index survey — the biggest jump any country has ever made. Like the Nobel, this can be written off as meaningless … a measure of Mr. Obama’s celebrity (and we know what people think of celebrities).

“But an America that’s tired of being the world’s policeman, and is too pinched to be the world’s philanthropist, could still be the world’s partner. And you can’t do that without being, well, loved.. . . [T]he idea of America, from the very start, was supposed to be contagious enough to sweep up and enthrall the world.

“And it is. The world wants to believe in America again because the world needs to believe in America again. We need your ideas — your idea — at a time when the rest of the world is running out of them.”

There were a record 205 nominees – 172 individuals and 33 organizations – topping the previous record of 199 set in 2005.  Although the nominations are kept secret for 50 years, some of them become known sooner if those making the submissions choose to publicize their choice.

Among the other reported or speculated nominees were Colombian activist Piedad Cordoba, Afghan woman’s rights activist Simi Samar, Congolese physician Denis Mukwege, Macedonian humanitarian and artist Zivko Popovski-Cvetin, Austrian children’s charity SOS-Kinderdorf International, American Greg Mortenson for his Asian school building charity, Vietnamese religious leader Thich Quang Do, American musician Pete Seeger and Chinese dissidents Hu Jia and Wei Jingsheng.

The Washington Post editorial board had an interesting suggestion for who they thought should have gotten the award instead of Obama: a woman who was entirely unknown in the world until she died, but whose first name now evokes a whole movement.

Neda Agha-Soltan was one of thousands of protesters in Iran earlier this year. Neda would have been just another number in the estimate of casualties except her final moments were captured on video, which was uploaded to YouTube and ricocheted around the world.  CNN and other news stations immediately reported on the incident as well though the state-controlled Iranian media did not.

According to CNN:

“People on Twitter started forming a discussion group with the ‘hashtag’ #neda to post their comments about her death and media coverage of the killing, as well.

“It became one of the top ‘trending topics’ on Twitter by Saturday evening [the day she died], early Sunday Tehran time.”

The person who posted the 38 second video is an Iranian refugee living in the Netherlands. According to Dutch news site NRC Handelsblad, the man, who wanted to be identified as Hamed, received the video from a Facebook friend who he has only ever met via the social networking site.

As Hamed recounted:

“I was communicating with several people in Tehran on Facebook when this friend contacted me. He said a girl had just been shot dead on the street right next to him and he had filmed it all with his cellphone. He asked me if I could publish it on the internet. So I did, on Facebook and on YouTube. I also sent it to the BBC, The Guardian and other media. I was immediately flooded with email.”

Many of the Nobel nominees work in relative obscurity; it’s probably safe to say that none became as instantly famous as Neda did due to one video that was publicized just as much by social media as traditional media.

Here’s an excerpt of the Washington Post editorial:

“The Nobel Committee’s decision is especially puzzling given that a better alternative was readily apparent. This year, hundreds of thousands of ordinary people in Iran braved ferocious official violence to demand their right to vote and to speak freely. Dozens were killed, thousands imprisoned. One of those killed was a young woman named Neda Agha-Soltan; her shooting by thugs working for the Islamist theocracy, captured on video, moved the world. A posthumous award for Neda, as the avatar of a democratic movement in Iran, would have recognized the sacrifices that movement has made and encouraged its struggle in a dark hour. Democracy in Iran would not only set a people free, it would also dramatically improve the chances for world peace, since the regime that murdered her is pursuing nuclear weapons in defiance of the international community.

“Announcing Friday that he would accept the award, Mr. Obama graciously offered to share it with ‘the young woman who marches silently in the streets on behalf of her right to be heard even in the face of beatings and bullets.’ But the mere fact that he avoided mentioning either Neda’s name or her country, presumably out of consideration for the Iranian regime with which he is attempting to negotiate, showed the tension that sometimes exists between ‘diplomacy and cooperation between peoples’ on the one hand, and advocacy of human rights on the other. The Nobel Committee could have spared Mr. Obama this dilemma if it had given Neda the award instead of him.”