It would seem to diminish the prize to give it to someone who has not done anything, who has had only a few months in office as President and who before that served briefly as a senator and a little longer as a state legislator. There are a lot of people working hard every day to achieve peace and justice. Why Obama? It's obviously the politically correct thing to do.
Yes I think there's a little too much Obama-loving going on here. I think even Obama heard the news and thought "Whaaaa?" -- at least wait until he's completed one term in office, and he hasn't actually done much for nuclear talks yet. If you ask me the honor of a Nobel Prize is being watered down these days anyway, but this just makes that point so much more obvious.
More than 200 people were nominated for the 2009 peace prize. The Nobel committee received a record 205 nominations for this year's prize. Nominations closed barely two weeks after the president had taken office.
So they weren't even basing it on anything he'd done as President, in other words, they've awarded a prize for a well-run election campaign?!?!?!
diminished and debased the nobel prize? Erm, I think you'll find they did that decades ago when they started giving it to former "terrorists" and politicians carrying out wars around the world. It seems to get the NPP, you have to start off killing a lot of people...then say to yourself, "right, I've killed enough, I'm going to stop" and then they'll say "hey, you stopped killing people, have a million dollars."
Hey, he didn't get the Olympics, he was danged if wasn't gonna get the peace prize.
Kissinger, Mother Teresa, F W De Klerk, Arafat, Rabin, Jimmy Carter... he's in fine company now.
Sorry Mr. Tsvangirai but you should devote a bit more time to PR (when you are not too busy avoiding being imprisoned/tortured/killed, negotiating with a violent megalomaniac or trying to prevent your country from completely disintegrating that is).