Has Obama done anything to "earn" the Nobel Peace Prize? Probably not…yet. He acknowledges that himself (again, a rather unusual statement from a sitting President). He must now face the additional burden of increased expectations.

Both domestically and abroad, Obama has set forth a comprehensive, coherent, and consistant vision of the US. He has embarked on ambitious (probably TOO ambitious…could ANYONE acheive those lofty goals?) policy and programme development consistant with that vision. He has demonstrated a commitment to competance, reasoned discourse, and the appropriate amount of flexibility. He has extended the notion of "HOPE' beyond the US borders to the international community. THAT'S probably why he was awarded the prize.

There's palpably LESS tension. LESS of the "Do as I say, not as I do" atmosphere. The US has become more predictable internationally (not "perfect" by a long shot), but at least foreign leaders and their socities again have reason to expect some serious consideration of their concerns. That's not an insignificant contribution to the maintenance of "peace".

Internationally, Obama has stepped back from unilateralism and brinkmanship and has acknowledged the legitimacy of other society's values and aspirations, WITHOUT denying those of the American people. The US still has "interests", but it's seemingly more prepared to work with others to further those interests, and those of other societies, than it has been in the recent past. The US still has a lot of power (both economically and militarily), but it appears to be willing to exercise those powers more responsibly, AND (importantly) more consistantly with its own expressed values. The US has very little credibility castigating other countries for, say, the use of torture and incarceration and abuse of human rights when "Gitmo" exists, or when "extraordinary rendition" is practiced, or torture is justified. The US's "moral authority" is being restored as these issues are being examined and resolved (although perhaps not as quickly as one would like).

So "HOPE", as an idea and/or value, should not be discounted, either. It's not enough on its own, of course, but the fact is that the "American Dream" (another, long-standing idea) has fallen on hard times. Too many people are working too hard and NOT acheiving "success" (however that's defined) for people to believe in it very much any more. But if one doesn't have "HOPE" for a better future, why would one do what has to be done to acheive it?

One should not dismiss the power of his (or anyone else's, for that matter) words. Words HAVE power. They express and form ideas. The right choice of words can resonate within people's minds and consciousness…and subconscious. They can create a mindset that is more positive and productive and goal-oriented, and ultimately more beneficial to both the individual and society. Why would one think otherwise, with the proven success of things like Carnegie"s "power of positive thinking", or more recently, in a "popular" sense anyway, "The Secret"?

Words and ideas that resonate with peoples' existing values and self-conceptions are more likely to be acted upon than those that create "cognitive dissonance", aren't they?

Domestically, he has restored faith in "process" in accordance with the principles and values of the US Constitution and its Amendments. It is NOT insignificant that he is the first "non-white" President; that reaffirms the notion that ANYBODY can, through dint of hard work and diligence…and a bit of good fortune and luck…can acheive "success", and even aspire to be President. No, that doesn't "solve" the racial divide in the US, that's far too entrenched to be repudiated on the basis of one election of one man, but it IS a positive value-affirming step.

Well, for one thing, he's changed the tenor of political discourse, both in the US, and internationally.

Perhaps some portion of "the right "doesn't accept it, but he has opened the door to bi-partisan policy development, although it looks like it may be closed again, because some partisans (on "both" sides) are incapable of seeing politics as anything but a "zero-sum" game.

He has publically acknowledged mistakes that he has made, something that few sitting Presidents have been willing to do, especially the previous one. The expectation that political leaders be infallible is unrealistic, and he has thus humanized the position which, somewhat counter-intuitively, actually makes more people relate positively to him. Everyone makes mistakes, right? So he's more like one of "them".

He actually makes the time and effort to carefully explain his reasoning for decisions. One may not agree with the decisions, but at least one can understand where he's coming from. Again, quite distinct from his predecessor.

Oh, I know…how about you play the race card John? Clearly, anyone that opposes Brock's nomination is a racist, dontchya know…as is anyone that opposes his health care plan, or any of his other policies…

His main qualification is that he's the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, elected (fairly) by both a majority and plurality of voters, and can string together a entire sentence without botching either his grammar or pronunciation of common word.

Second, he wasn't in the running for Physics. Them are apple and oranges.

You are correct this was a vote against the American Taliban, the crypto-fascists, mad-militarists, and bogus conservative dogmatists who never saw a nation they shouldn't invade or a people they couldn't pilfer from.

Physicists have to wait many decades before their contributions are recognized. Obama is nominated for what he might or could or should do a few weeks after taking office. If the Nobel committee does not maintain standards then it's prizes will lapse into irrelevance.

Of course, Obama didn't do this by himself, but it's hard to give an award to the 52.9% of American voters who voted for him. Flying 69,456,897 people to Sweden would be something of a logistical nightmare.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that the deficit will still be at best $850 billion in 2017, well after the financial crisis is ended, if Obama's budget proposals are implemented. Note that this is still twice Bush's worst deficit. Here's the whole deal laid out in a nice graph, for people who dismiss everything they don't like as "dishonest" "sickening" "crap" from "haters".

Don't throw around accusations of dishonesty unless you know what you're talking about. Capisce?

The Congressional Budget Office projects that the deficit will still be at best $850 billion in 2017, if Obama's budget proposals are implemented. Note that this is still twice Bush's worst deficit. Here's the whole deal laid out in a nice graph, for people who dismiss everything they don't like as "dishonest" "sickening" "crap" from "haters".

Don't throw around accusations of dishonesty unless you know what you're talking about. Capisce?

The Congressional Budget Office projects that the deficit will still be at best $850 billion in 2017, if Obama's budget proposals are implemented. Note that this is still twice Bush's worst deficit. Here's the whole deal laid out in a nice graph, for people who dismiss everything they don't like as "dishonest" "sickening" "crap" from "haters".

Don't throw around accusations of dishonesty unless you know what you're talking about.

Which, of course, makes precisely the point that the Nobel Peace Prize, which used to mean something, has been sullied by silliness again this year.

I recall very, very powerful words spoken by a man who was heralded at the time as one of the greatest champions for peace, to a greatful populace fatigued from too much war.

Those words were: "PEACE IN OUR TIME!"

Spoken by one Neville Chamberlain.

Meanwhile, Hitler went about assembling his Panzer divisions, to counter those very nice sounding words.

Several decades later we have the eloquent Obama with his "outstretched hand" at the Iranians, who in turn graciously accept these kind words, while they work to fit their Shahab-3 missles with nuclear warheads.

I would love to hear how sane commentators on your rhetorical side will prop that one up.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that the deficit will be at best $850 billion in 2017, if Obama's budget proposals are implemented. This estimate does not include Obamacare.

Don't throw around accusations of dishonesty unless you know what you're talking about.

I guess those are accomplishments… in a weird, twisted sort of way.

K: "Bush belongs in jail. Did you hear me, you hate spewing, Yes-We-Can-fearing, neo-con far-right dopes? I said JAIL!" Love and roses all around. Check!

Uh, ok then…

K: "Bush belongs in jail. Did you hear me, you hate spewing, Yes-We-Can-fearing, neo-con far-right dope? I said JAIL!" Love and roses all around. Check!

Uh, ok then…

K: "Bush belongs in jail. Did you hear me, you hate spewing, Yes-We-Can-fearing, Neo-con far-right dope? I said JAIL!" Love and roses all around. Check!

Uh, ok then…

K: "Bush belongs in jail. Did you hear me, you hate spewing Neo-con far-right dope? I said JAIL!" Love and roses all around. Check!

Uh, ok then…

Of course, this really was never about Mr. Obama per se. This was about demarcating the ideologues who allowed the American nation to be attacked by terrorists, wage two failed wars, allow an American city to be nearly destroyed by neglect, preside over two recessions, have the entire global economy nearly collapse due to their crony-capitalist mantra, increase global terrorism and religious extremism, exacerbate nuclear proliferation, and condemn humanity to a future of unknown environmental horror.

And again why do we care what Republicans think? They now have fallen to no more than 23% of the American electorate.

When they gave it to Gore, that might have been the first time they handed out the award for something that had absolutely no appararent connection to the concept of peace. Not only is there no evidence of global warming, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079…
there has never been in any way a conflict that was more than superficially related to climate. It was the first time they started using the award to make a political statement.

It's really a shame, because the science Nobels are really unique and are generally managed well (even though einstein won only once and that was not for his greatest work), so this type of thing does two things:
-unfairly tarnishes the science prizes
-unfairly elevates the peace prize

When they gave it to Gore, that might have been the first time they handed out the award for something that had absolutely no appararent connection to the concept of peace. Not only is there no evidence of global warming (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079… there has never been in any way a conflict that was more than superficially related to climate. It was the first time they started using the award to make a political statement.

It's really a shame, because the science Nobels are really unique and are generally managed well (even though einstein won only once and that was not for his greatest work), so this type of thing does two things:
-unfairly tarnishes the science prizes
-unfairly elevates the peace prize

If Obama had any class, he'd have turned down the award on the grounds that he has yet to earn it. It would have been a huge political win for him too had he done this.

As for the rest of us, I think we've seen the politicization of the Nobel Peace Prize for quite some time now: Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore. People who actually helped world peace…(Reagan ending the Cold War? JP2? Tony Blair in Northern Ireland?)…but who don't fit the Leftist-ideologue mold: unmentioned.

What did Nobel say in his will? "… to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

I don't think fighting CO2 emissions for personal profit or making vague speeches about Hope and Change is quite what he had in mind.

If Obama had any class, he'd have turned down the award on the grounds that he has yet to earn it. It would have been a huge political win for him too had he done this.

As for the rest of us, I think we've seen the politicization of the Nobel Peace Prize for quite some time now: Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore. People who actually helped world peace…(Reagan ending the Cold War? JP2? Tony Blair in Northern Ireland?)…but who don't fit the Leftist-ideologue mold, unmentioned.

What did Nobel say in his will? "… to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

I don't think fighting CO2 emissions for personal profit or making vague speeches about Hope and Change is quite what he had in mind.