However, nothing Obama has done so far merits the award, and it does sadden me that a president fighting at least one illegal war, whose state has still not properly ratified human rights agreements (and oh, yes, the list goes on etc.), should be considered a model of good conduct.

On the right, they’re crying “affirmative action” — because, you know, all the qualified people on the entire planet are white.

This is an extremely facile description of what “the right” is crying. Even at the link you gave, the poster — though he opens with an Affirmative Action jab — offers substantive criticisms, which indeed have been mirrored in the comments thread here.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter who the committee gives it to — it was clear it was a joke when they gave it to Arafat. But given what we’ve seen of Obama’s policies thus far, I think defending his acceptance of the prize, or at least attacking those criticizing it, is ridiculous. He hasn’t closed Gitmo, he hasn’t forced any recriminations for the last administration’s torturers, he hasn’t ended or even taken steps to end either war we’re involved in, and he hasn’t rolled back any of the overreaches in executive power that the Bush administration grabbed. It’s only natural to dislike some of the people these criticisms — some of them are quite odious — but sorry, they’re right. He just doesn’t deserve it.

Greg Mortenson, the earlier favorite, actually had specific concrete “peace” accomplishments, vs just successful campaigns and the beginnings of an ambitious but as-yet unfulfilled agenda.

In 1993, to honor his dead , Mortenson went to climb a mountain in northern Pakistan. After saving the life of another climber, after several months, he wound up in a small village, where he was cared for by the villagers while he recovered. Mortenson built a school for the village and fought to get funding for what became the Central Asia Institute. The mission of CAI—a non-profit organization—is to promote education and literacy, especially for girls, in remote mountain regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Mortenson was CAI’s first Executive Director.

From wiki:

“In the process of building schools, Mortenson has survived an eight-day armed 1996 kidnapping in the tribal areas of Waziristan, in Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province; escaped a 2003 firefight between Afghan opium warlords; endured two fatwās by angry Islamic clerics for educating girls; and received hate mail and threats from fellow Americans for helping educate Muslim children.

Mortenson believes that education and literacy for girls globally is the most important investment all countries can make to create stability, bring socio-economic reform, decrease infant mortality, decrease the population explosion, and improve health, hygiene, and sanitation standards globally. Mortenson believes that ‘fighting terrorism’ only perpetuates a cycle of violence, and that there should be a global priority to ‘promote peace’ through education and literacy, with an emphasis on girls’ education. “You can drop bombs, hand out condoms, build roads or put in electricity, but unless the girls are educated, a society won’t change”, is an often quoted statement made by Mortenson. Because of community ‘buy-in’, which involves getting villages to donate free land, subsidized or free labor (’sweat equity’), free wood and resources, the schools have local support and have been able to avoid retribution by the Taliban or other groups opposed to girls’ education.”

Obama has stated a vision that has been responded to well in the international community, and may someday be a viable contestant for this award. But how have his accomplishments to date, notable as they are, compared with those of Mortenson?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1801773.stm

http://www.michigandaily.com/print/33920

http://media.www.districtchronicles.com/media/storage/paper263/news/2002/02/21/Variety/Bush-Nominated.For.Nobel.Backwards.This.Is-188414.shtml

Each side likes to say the other side is a bad sport, not supporting America, or whatever, but I definitely think both the left and the right are guilty of selectively “rallying behind the USA.”

And there’s no denying that the NPP is heavily political – the committee obviously favors Obama’s style of international relations over Bush’s. I personally hate the idea of giving the NPP to any sitting world leader because 1) it’s usually way to early to see what if anything they have accomplished and 2) In bestowing the prestige of the Nobel to a sitting leader you’re arming the supporters of said leader with a potent weapon to stifle dissent.

I disagree completely with this. The fact that he won this award while simultaneously protecting Israel from the Goldstone Report and while expanding the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan makes the award itself meaningless and even farcical.

I get that this might be a means for the committee to pressure Obama in pursuing peace, but let’s face it: his *current* actions do not merit an award. Obama has essentially taken up Netanyahu’s plan for Palestine as his own, he is now backtracking on Gitmo, he’s failed to examine Bush’s torture policy, and his airstrikes are killing dozens, perhaps hundreds, of Afghan and Pakistani civilians.

The day he puts pressure on Israel, the day he realizes that his Afghan war strategy is a failure, and the day he commits to less US troops in the ME should be the day he’s considered for this award.

It’s entirely meaningless at this point.