The Nobel Peace Prize? Really?

Although I'm not the biggest Obama fan when it comes to economic policy, and though I question his tendency to refuse to meet with friends and to show support for some pretty despicable leaders, I'm not exactly a knee-jerk anti-Obama guy. I hope he's successful on many of his professed social positions, and I hope that he is successful on the international stage. If you don't know anything at all about economics, it's too early to judge Obama about much of anything, considering he hasn't even been President for a year.

And considering that last fact, how on earth can the Nobel Peace Prize have been awarded to Obama? The Nobel Committee argues that it's for his "efforts" and because he gives "people hope." So he got it not because he has actually accomplished anything, but for what are at the present moment nothing more than symbolic actions and rhetoric?

Let's be honest here. Al Gore won the Prize because he was anti-Bush. This is the Committee's last middle finger to the Bush administration. Not that the Bush administration doesn't deserve such a gesture for much of its international efforts -- but that shouldn't be what the Prize is for.

Obama hasn't done a single thing to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. I hope he earns it, but I suspect he won't.