I’ll just quote from the Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times:
“I am a genuine admirer of Obama. And I am very pleased that George W. Bush is no longer president. But I doubt that I am alone in wondering whether this award is slightly premature. It is hard to point to a single place where Obama’s efforts have actually brought about peace – Gaza, Iran, Sri Lanka?”
I remember the complaints about Al Gore winning. I defended that choice a little here on this blog, but this is gone even further. Does this make sense to anyone who isn’t still starry eyed about our president? Aren’t we lead to believe the peace prize is about accomplishments and not just hope?
Update: The left don’t think he deserved it (he’s escalating in Afghanistan). The right think it’s pure politics (call it the not George W. Bush award.) The only way to make this a positive is for him to have the character to decline.
Update: Well, clever guy that he is, he didn’t decline, but instead accepted the prize “as an affirmation of American leadership,” and a “call to action.” It’s a thoughtful response, but I don’t think it will do at all. He will still live under the shroud of “he didn’t deserve it.” Good news, Obama won’t suffer as much as the Nobel Peace Prize which now will have about as much credibility as the Oscars.