Okay, so I want to put in my few cents on Obama's Nobel Prize. Being half-Swedish and an academic to boot, I happen to know a thing or two about the prizes. I've been to the banquet at Stockholm city hall, I have friends in the Royal Swedish Academy of Science. (who tell me nothing.. :) They take the secrecy and it all very seriously)
While I don't know anyone in Folketinget (the Norwegian parliament), I still think I've got a pretty good idea what they were thinking.
"It's all political"
Of course it's political - It's the Peace prize; an inherently political area. That's why it's awarded by the parliament. (Norway got to award the Peace Prize because Sweden was in union with Norway during Nobel's life). The creation of the peace prize was itself a radical political act, in the much more bellicose environment that existed in Europe at the turn of the century (and which would eventually lead to, and end with, World War).
The conservatives of Nobel's day thought it was complete nonsense.
It's political, but that doesn't mean it's right-left partisan. It's not partisan from the Scandinavian standpoint, because there are no Republicans there. We'd be lucky to have Democrats as progressive as their 'conservatives'! Sweden's right-wing Prime Minister, Frederik Reinfeldt, voiced his open preference for Obama last year even before the primary race was over.
(The Swedish party leaders were split fairly evenly between Clinton and Obama. As an aside: the one party leader who thought they were all crap was the former-Communist party leader)
The one political agenda of the Nobel Peace Prize is to promote peace. Actively.
And yes: This is, in a way, a final middle-finger to the Bush administration. Undersigned: the World. Just in case they didn't get the hint after two Democrats got the prize during his presidency. The Republicans don't give a damn about what the rest of the world thinks. So they're just returning the favor.
"It's too soon"
I agree that it is pretty soon. But he deserves it. He's the first black president, to begin with. He's the guy who'll end the war in Iraq. (and hopefully, Afghanistan) End the USA's use of torture. Close Gitmo. Lead disarmament and non-proliferation efforts. Restore and reinforce the role of diplomacy in negotiations. And take Climate Change as seriously as the Europeans (especially the Scandinavians) do.
Obama's well on his way to doing this (and had already done significant work in the Senate, with the Lugar-Obama Act, for instance).
Obama has only been president for 10 months. He could screw up later. But that's irrelevant to the rules and spirit of the Nobels. While they often take on that character nowadays, they were never intended as a kind of 'lifetime achievment award'. They cannot be awarded posthumously (which would obviously be the easiest way to avoid embarrassments).
That rule is intentional - Nobel's original intention was to award those who'd done the most in the past year. ("under det förlupna året") That is, to take a more 'activist' role in awarding people still in the middle of their careers. Giving the prize to Obama may be a bit unusual in light of recent tradition, but it's not the slightest bit at odds with Nobel's original intent.
"It's meaningless"
Bulls--t. The Nobel Prizes are hands-down the most prestigious awards of their kind in the world. In every country.
Yes, bad decisions have been made, in particular with the Peace prize. That's a risk you take by being 'activist'. Kissinger was a bad award: But it reflected how extremely fed up both Americans and the rest of the world was over Vietnam. Arafat/Peres/Rabin was short-sighted as well. Chalk that one up to Norwegian over-enthusiasm over 'their' Oslo Peace Accords. (which were nevertheless still a step forward)
That doesn't change the fact that the other 95% were incredibly important and deserving winners. Kissinger got it. But so did Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Dalai Lama, Willy Brandt, Aung San Suu Kyi and Lech Wałęsa. (And they all accepted it).
"Obama should refuse"
Equally B.S. That's underestimating the honor. It's also misunderstanding the situation: Almost nobody has ever refused the prizes in general. Sartre was one, Kissenger's intended counterpart Le Duc Tho is the only Peace Laureate who's refused. That's not a big club. You want Obama's name to be put next to Le Duc Tho's for eternity?
It would be considered ruder, more arrogant, and definitely generate much more publicity if Obama refused the prize. That's why very few ever refuse it (even if many have contemplated doing so)
Besides which, it fits Obama's schedule nicely. He's supposed to be in Copenhagen around then.