I've been trying to figure it out for quite some time now, and haven't been able to make any sense out of it...
Doesn't a person need to have actually *done* something (not just have potential, and not just utter words) to win the Nobel Peace Prize?
I've sincerely tried to be open minded about it, not wanting to allow a simple knee-jerk reaction, and have made a real attempt to understand just why the committee awarded President Obama the Peace Prize. I honestly think I simply must have misjudged the true meaning of that prize. Not because of who won it, as my friends on the "other side of the aisle" will no doubt accuse (please, no knee-jerking), but because of the overwhelming lack of real actions to have truly earned it. Let him actually *do* something, which takes more time than the committee even had to evaluate, and then judge on the sole basis of the actions done.
This prize should not be a tool to make some sort of political statement, or to award as an encouragement to follow through on words spoken, but a recognition of true and noble deeds already and actually accomplished. I do not see anything of that calibre happening at this point, and certainly not way back at the time the vote was taken for the Prize. Even staunch supporters of the President have to admit, beyond the high expectations they have for him, he has not yet done anything *that* noteworthy.
I am afraid this once esteemed honor will not be quite as high in my personal estimation in the future. By using the Peace Prize as a political statement, the committee has cheapened it in my eyes. It has lost all its former meaning for me.