Isn't this an exercise in futility? It matters not a whit what you say or do or explain or what Obama does. He could find a cure for breast cancer and they would complain since he has girls he didn't find a cure for prostate cancer. You are shoveling shit against the tide trying to reason with or convince those that want neither. They just want to rant against anything Obama, Reid, Pelosi or any other prominent Democrats with ideas. Hell, they paint Obama as Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and a Witch Doctor! Do you honestly think an explanation of the inner workings of the Nobel Committee makes any difference to these cretins?

The audience that matters are not the crazies that make unfounded accusations; the audience that matters are the moderates and independants who migh think there was a point if the accusations are not met and defeated with facts.

Since most people probably have no idea how the Nobel laureates are chosen, there is every good reason to explain the process. The taget audience here are those people who are willing to learn new things. That, of course, rules out those who reflexively oppose President Obama. They closed their minds about the time they reached adolescence and have determinedly kept them in that state.

You know, I'm all for anything that sends the right wing into a fit of apoplexy ... but, my basic reaction is WTF?

I guess I get that it wasn't about what Obama has done - indeed, it couldn't be.

What I don't get is what "path" this is in anticipation of. Continued extraordinary renditions? An Afghan surge? More illegal wiretapping? Out-Bushing Bush on State secrets and opacity? Making FISA and the Patriot Act even more despicable?

True, he has been more level headed in dealing with North Korea and Iran and the one area where he seems truly enlightened (so far) is Palestine but, on the whole, he has hardly committed himself to peace and justice.

If the only criteria is that he's not Bush ... well, actually I could probably make peace with that. But it sure would make it easier if he would actually become what everyone seems to want to project him to be.

The attacks from the left on this are fascinating. The cries of "What has he done?" are incredibly short-sighted.

One of Obama's major campaign promises was to "restore our standing in the world." The Nobel Peace Prize, based on the rationale the committee has given, was based on Obama's tangible advances in doing just what he promised he would do with regards to America's international credibility and engagement.

But, what has the left done? Instead of acknowledging the palpable and objective (see international polls) change, they've pissed on Obama AND the Nobel Peace Prize.

I understand that many on the left have high expectations for the President; but, high expectations are not exclusive to the left. Furthermore, even when one has high expectations, he should still be able to acknowledge a prestigious accomplishment without diminishing it as the "anti-Bush prize."

I expected the pissing from the right. But the pissing from the left confirms to me that many on the left have also embraced such a jaundiced view of this President that they can no longer acknowledge his accomplishments [as noted by many who say, seriously and without acknowledgement or awareness of their hyperbole, that Obama has done "nothing."]. The willingness of some on the left to disregard such a bold contradiction to their hyperbolic "nothingness" critique indicates a profound ignorance -- unwillingness to acknowledge information that challenges your view -- that is more consistent with modern-day conservatism than progressivism.

You're right, "'Not being horrendously awful' is not, IMO, a good criterion for the Peace Prize." Perhaps, that explains why that wasn't the criterion that the Nobel Committee used in selecting President Obama. Instead, that's your interpretation of why the committee selected President Obama. That I need to differentiate the two perspectives seems to underscore my point.

Additionally, I find it curious that, instead of embracing this achievement as a bolstering of progressive calls for a more diplomatic approach to world affairs and nonproliferation efforts, some people are working to undermine or belittle it.

I have no personal animosity toward the people on the left who are belittling this. I'm just voicing frustration, because I just don't understand the attacks on an achievement that could help dramatically further international and domestic progressive aims.

having studied the nobel peace prize a bit (having been involved in a peace prize related organization and having had the opportunity to meet with a laureate), i think anyone who actually looked at the criteria that the peace prize committee actually uses (and has used in the past) would find that 'peace' can mean many many different things and the purpose of awarding the prize is very political in nature in that the awarding of the prize is itself designed to have an impact on creating peace or advancing causes related to peace. just as the awarding of macarthur 'genius' grants is more about what the recipients can accomplish with having won the award than it is about acknowledging past accomplishments, these kinds of awards are meant to be purposeful rather than congratulatory. rather than asking what obama has accomplished to deserve the award, the correct question to ask is, what is the nobel committee trying to accomplish by awarding the prize to obama.