Sometimes, the Nobel Peace Prize requires some consideration, and isn't obvious why it was the right choice. That's part of not just following the popular opinion.
When they're trying to push for change, that often means going against the prevailing views. So what was the thinking here?
Well, there might be a bit in the idea that the right-wing is such a threat to the planet, that there is a real backlash against it by the Nobel committee.
It goes towards the way Bush's presidency was a real radical and threat - which the right doesn't understand, and so they don't understand the backlash.
The US popular culture has a major part that's overly militarized and right-wing and it's a mystery to those people why others disagree, and so they ignore the award here, or try to discredit it - which just so happens to put their mindless hate of Obama ahead of their support for their nation getting this international prestige which benefits the United States, further evidece that they're less about supporting their country than about being ideologues. It'd be another matter if they could actually argue why Obama is 'bad for the world' in their opposition the way the left can about Bush, but their opposition can't do that.
Having said all that, and while I think Obama is far, far better than any of the Republicans we could have had, I've probably posted as much or more critical of his policies than good. That's included too much saying the right thing but doing too little about it, from big business to Bush administration accountability.
My reaction to this news was surprise, that it's premature and not clear why it's justified. I *do* give him some real credit for his tiny, too-small taking some responsibility for US policies - such as being the first president apparently ever to say anything about our overthrowing democracy in Iran in 1953, think it's time? - for which the idiot right has blasted him for 'apologizing', even while he has stood against others' wrongs as well.
Wanting to confirm it was real, I went to salon.com (see my sig), and found:
The headline news story, highlighting Obama's "The president says he doesn't feel he deserves the Nobel".
Second was the commentary - by Glenn Greenwald (see my sig), headlined "Obama's unearned Nobel". Darned liberal web sites.
Link
As usual it's a very good commentary. I considered excerpting it but there's too much good stuff, or quoting it but it's big and there are visuals included.
It lays out both the case for the prize, and then follows it with why it's unjustified, and cites several issues where Obama has not done enough.
It goes on to attack the Democratic party for copying the Republicans in saying that Rewpublicans who criticize the prize are 'siding with the terrorists not the US'.
(If Republicans try to deny that, they' quite wrong, just days ago I ran across a Republican Senator saying that the House Democrats who were agianst the Iraq force authorization 'sounded like they were members of Saddam's public relations team').
Overall, while I think there are a lot of valid points to the criticisms of this award, I see the committee's point about how important it is to endorse the return from the Bush radicalism to global diplomacy. At the end of the day that's the only thing that seems to have much chance for reducing a lot of war and killing. I don't think I'd have voted for Obama on this, but I also think the Nobel committee might be right, and I'm warming up to the idea.
What's the prize really for? To push the world in the 'right direction' of diplomacy over peace - in recognizing the one small person who fights the corrupt tyrrany that might even have broad popular support - or to support the president who endorses diplomacy over the one who supported spitting on diplomacy.