PS. Why? For the same reason the majority of Americans voted for him in the first place: because he's not a freaking idiot like Bush. - Steven Perez

Oh, how I love hearing your voice of Reason, Steven! ;-) Totally made my morning! ^_^ - Carlton Hackett

And there will also be those of us who are not wingnuts and are not crazy who will also be critical of this award, because the situation is worthy of criticism.. - Dave Roth

For those folks, Dave, I give you this: "Asked why the prize had been awarded to Mr Obama less than a year after he took office, Nobel Committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said: "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve". "It is a clear signal that we want to advocate the same as he has done," he said. He specifically mentioned Mr Obama's work to strengthen international institutions and work towards a world free of nuclear arms." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2... - Steven Perez

@Steven: funnily enough, those are all things that wingnuts are opposed to. - Rene, Pro Button Pusher

So, basically, he got the Nobel Peace Prize for his work as a "community organizer" ... Steve told us all that was important work, back when everyone was mocking it. Here's his vindication. - Joel Bennett

Reading is fundamental, Joel: "Asked why the prize had been awarded to Mr Obama less than a year after he took office, Nobel Committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said: "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve". "It is a clear signal that we want to advocate the same as he has done," he said. He specifically mentioned Mr Obama's work to strengthen international institutions and work towards a world free of nuclear arms." - Steven Perez

So, just so I can see if I am reading it right, President Obama received the award, not for what he HAS done, but what he MAY do or is TRYING to do? I am definitely not a wingnut from either side of the aisle, but that does sound a little like it is stretching the purpose of the award. I don't doubt He will do something to actually deserve the award, I just question its timing. - Andy Glover

@Andy: it is precisely the timing that is so important. The US has been gliding down a slippery slope for a long time now and this encouragement could actually turn the slope. - Rene, Pro Button Pusher

So we give an award that has been given to people who have accomplished great things on the behalf of peace to someone who "will do" great things on the behalf of peace? Sorry @rene, I don't buy it. It cheapens the award, not because of the Who, which I have no issue with at all as I see what the President is trying to accomplish , but the when. The committee should have waited till next year when the evidence would have been firmer and some actions had already borne fruit. - Andy Glover

Given how the world used to view the US under Bush, I'd say that change in reputation is a consider step forward, Andy. - Steven Perez

@Andy: I disagree on the timing. One year from now it may be too late. Nothing concrete has yet be done, maybe in another year, the US may have invaded Iran. This award is to underscore the importance of the US's behavior in the world theater. (Then again, the peace prize is a bit of an oxymoron to begin with ...) - Rene, Pro Button Pusher

And besides, after Obama gets the Israelis and Palestinians talking to each other again, they'll be plenty of time to give him a second Nobel. :D - Steven Perez

It just sully's the award and turns it into a political carrot now in a lot of folks minds, including mine. And since when does the award of a prize dictate US policy? And to award a prize as an effort to "push" the US into a course of action is not a good reason to award the honor at this point. BTW, does anyone seriously, even for a moment think the President would authorize an invasion of Iran given the "Why" behind his own election? That'd be the quickest way to a single term in history. - Andy Glover

@Andy: again, I agree with your opinion on the prize, but what a lot of people do not seem (to want) to understand is the severity of the problems the US is finding itself in. It is the Chinese, Japanese and a few European countries that keep the US going and so far words have fallen on deaf ears. This is a less than subtle action to get a message across: either you do what you promised to do and we will support you; if you don't, we just might pull the financial and political plugs. The USA needs to understand that they are not the boss of the world (anymore), they will have to learn how to compromise and cooperate, - Rene, Pro Button Pusher

Andy: handing out Nobel Peace Prizes for political achievement has been de rigueur since Teddy Roosevelt won the Prize in 1906 for mediating an end to the Russo-Japanese War. - Steven Perez

I could agree with you IF the nomination would not HAD to have been submitted with the president in office at no more than 11 days. At that point, the only real change made was several hastily penned executive orders to undo some of the mess created by executive order. @ Steven, but the point is Teddy Roosevelt had DONE something when he had been given that award. To be an equivalent example, President Roosevelt would have to have received the award after simply saying he was going to TRY to mediate the difference and stop the war. I have no issue with handing it out as a reward for something DONE, regardless of the politics. - Andy Glover

Andy: working with other countries and international agencies when his predecessor thumbed his nose at them and started wars on two fronts is NOT having done nothing. - Steven Perez

@Andy: all other nominees were chosen at that point in time as well, still enough time between then and now to award the prize to someone else. - Rene, Pro Button Pusher

As it stands, I have no heart burn that Obama received the award, as I believe time will bear out he deserves/will deserve the award. My only issue is the reduction of the Prize to a political and social Carrot/Stick wrapped up in one, especially when there are other, more profound ways to give the President the message implied in posts above. Refusing him the Olympics in his home city is more than enough of a start. @Steven, you know what I meant by that. I meant he had, at that point, not accomplished what the Prize is normally awarded for in the first place. I just know that this has the potential to come back and bite our collective posteriors very hard - Andy Glover

Andy: two things: (1) as I have stated before, no matter who the President is, if I had the choice to spend a summer in Chicago (my hometown, as well, btw) and a summer in sexy Rio, I'd be packing my bags for Brazil, too. (2) Rene is correct. Being nominated is not the same as an automatic win. Obama could have done a lot of things in the interim eight months to DQ himself, yet the Nobel Committee still selected him. Whether or not we believe Obama deserves the award is immaterial. The Committee obviously though he did, and that's what counts. - Steven Perez

@Andy: I agree with what you state. Thanks for the civil debate :-) - Rene, Pro Button Pusher

@rene, Thanks as well. @ steven, frankly that is like saying the President deserved the award because he didn't mess things up for eight months. With that criteria, even bush could have qualified simply because he was out of power and couldn't do anything to make things worse. Also, don't for a second think the choice for Rio was anything OTHER than a slap at the US in retaliation for the last eight years and a reminder to the new President he still has a long way to go to undo the mess made in foreign relations by his predecessor. In the end, I am happy for the recognition the President has received and applaud him and hope he will accept the award in person, but in the end, this award does nothing to signify we are getting better in the world's eyes and in the years to come, may hold more down-side than up, especially when there were others who could have been given the award for past actions rather than future promises. - Andy Glover

Sorry, Andy. The Committee felt differently. - Steven Perez

NO, WE HAVE TO BLAME OBAMA! :P - Joe The Sausage

Steven, I voted for Obama, I'd like to see him achieve what he said he'd do on the campaign trail. And I don't believe he has earned the prize - even if one stretches it to mean "awarded for something in progress". He just hasn't put in enough time. There were many people and organizations more deserving of the award. The Nobel Committee screwed up, in my opinion. Not everyone who disagrees with the choice of 2009 recipient is a wingnut. - Spidra Webster

who's calling those who disagree wingnuts? i don't think he's earned it yet either. i do, however, think that those who blame HIM for his winning are a bit touched in the head. - Joe The Sausage

@DS: exactly, it's not like he campained for it, like he tried with the Olympics. - Rene, Pro Button Pusher

Blame us (Norway), we can take it :) We gave the peace prize to the leader of a nation at war after all. - Eivind

I think the Nobel Peace Committee has always had a soft spot for anything around the nuclear threat, and Obama's been at it since 2006 or 2007, and less nuclear weapons is perhaps something the Nobel Peach Committee felt needed a big "yes, keep at it, get the message, dont forget the nuclear doomsday clock with the new global warming doom coming" - Iphigenie

I don't have a problem with it, at worst Obama will not do much for peace so it would be a wasted prize not a big deal, at best it's an encouragement (and reminder) to do something constructive and given what is at stake it's worth the risk. There are probably a lot more "peaceful" people that would deserve the prize but they are not in Obama's position to make real changes at this level. - M F

You can step that rich, dark taste up a notch with a schadenfreude pie! http://whatever.scalzi.com/2006... - Lo the Baker

Mmmmmm, schadenfreude pie ... :) - Steven Perez

“From Hell’s heart I stab at thee, Schadenfreude Pie!” - Joe The Sausage

Technically speaking, we aren't at war and haven't been at war with any country for quite some time. The proper way to put it is "We gave the peace prize to the leader of a nation involved in several armed conflicts and occupations after all" - Scoble, Alex Scoble

So technically speaking, what is war then may I ask? Unarmed conflict? But whatever... U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! - The Real sofarsoShawn

"he's not a freaking idiot like Bush". Liked it especially because of these words. :-) - Ton Zijp