The committee's reasoning was, "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future." In other words, and this is what Charles Gibson echoed on ABC News, they gave him this award based on his promise as a world leader. Nobody, not even the President, is disillusioned to the fact that this award is a gesture, a symbol, in praise of the small amount of work he's accomplished (I mean, he got Russia to agree to a nuclear disarmament policy...), and the hopes that he'll do so much more.
He said in a Rose Garden speech this morning that he felt "humbled" and that he felt he did not deserve this award. He also reminded us that the aspirations he has that won him the award cannot be achieved by one leader, or even in one lifetime. (Such as nuclear disarmament.)
However, winners in the past include Martin Luther King, Jr., the 14th Dalai Lama, Elie Wiesel (Holocaust survivor), and Mother Theresa... They all had accomplished something huge by the time their prize was awarded. I'm not positive that awarding someone the Prize in this manner is unprecedented, but it is certainly a surprise. Let's just hope that Obama can actually live up to the worldwide expectations heaped upon his shoulders now. But, be sure that the right-wing is drumming up a swarm of liberal, peace & love-hating media coverage, bombarding the American populace with more ideas about how Obama is a celebrity rather than a politician. This could very easily hurt him.
So... What do you think? Was the award deserved? Should the Nobel committee be giving prizes based on promises and hopes, or should the award have gone to someone with a bit more accomplishments under their belt?
Love and Lyte,