He has, however, done quite a bit since he's been in office. It's probably not covered very well in the U.S., however, the speech he gave in Cairo went a long way towards a more friendly attitude towards the U.S. from the Middle East, as well as his willingness to talk rather than threaten. Most Europeans I've spoken to have a much softer attitude towards the U.S. with him in office, and have more respect for us as a country for voting him in. We're not so much seen as a bunch of blithering bullies. That's two things that are rather huge. Add in bringing healthcare to the forefront, the various meetings with world rulers, giving more credence to the UN, and, indeed, actively participating with the UN. How about only taking 1 week off for a vacation, as opposed to Bush who took the entire month of August off in his first year.
Diplomacy is a long and quiet process where it looks like not much is going on until it's done. Think of it as filling a huge pool with water from a single hose. Obama is a diplomat.
No, he should not have won. Saying that he has not done anything, however, is just showing your own ignorance.
Estel mentioned many important things Obama has done. (I’d also like to mention climate change and nuclear disarmament.) I’m a little surprised that we come down on different conclusions.
The most important thing for me is the diplomacy and UN and international political climate thing. It’s something you can’t measure in numbers or see with your own two eyes, but it’s
so important. And I am convinced that Obama’s achievements on that point have contributed to world peace, present and future, even if you can’t point at a specific conflict and say that “Obama solved it!†And therefore, I do not think it was wrong to give him the Peace Prize.
I also think it’s an insult to Obama to say that the only thing he’s done is not being Bush. He has made a choice and chosen a course. He could have chosen differently.
I agree with this assessment [an observation Cerin made on HoF]. What bothers me, and this could be complete naivete on my part, is that I didn't think the NPP was politically-based in this way. So, for me, it somewhat diminishes the credibility and prestige of the award. But, then again, I am probably just glorifying something that has been politically-driven from the beginning.
I mean, obviously, I know politics are involved. You can't be a peacemaker on this level without it involving countries, social issues, and the like. But giving the award to Obama at this stage in the game seems to imply that the committee cares more about their own ideologies or political agendas than acknowledging or rewarding someone who has actually accomplished a great deal toward peacemaking.
Some has said that “this was controversial, let’s stop giving out the NPPâ€. I’d say that when the NPP
stops being controversial, it’s time to question its worth. A harmless NPP is a bad NPP. We
need a political NPP. Take examples like Willy Brandt, Lech Walesa and Mikhail Gorbatsjov: those were controversial decisions at the time. But proved to be good decisions, and the NPPs awarded contributed to important political processes that made the world a better place. That, for me, is the greatest value of the NPP, if it can actually do some good in the world.
It’s a risk, yes. It’s daring. But that, in my opinion, is the kind of NPP we need.
Anyway, if the Committee thinks that Obama’s political agenda is contributing to world peace, how can it be wrong of them to judge according to that? There will always be people who disagree. Would you have protested and called it a political decision (and therefore bad) if the NPP had been given out to for example one of the Chinese human rights activists? I know the Chinese government wouldn’t have been happy…