Redefine News

It’s probably right that there's nothing great about this year's Nobel Peace Prize. Other Nobel Peace Prize laureates such as Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, even Al Gore—achieved specific things that unarguably changed the world for the better before they got their awards. Alfred Nobel's prize is for people who have done the most or the finest work for alliance between nations or for the mankind.

This time we can say that The Nobel Committee has accidentally done something that will only widen the political gulf between red and blue by increasing the opposition to Obama, which will make it even more difficult for him to actually achieve any of his goals.

The question is not what he has done. We know that He still continues to soothe the mind of the international left-liberal organization. He's still the artistic—and unifying—symbol of anti-Bush.

We also know that the Afghanistan may not be Vietnam yet but the "necessary" war is going nowhere near the Taliban resistance, healthcare is still a mess and the recession has not exactly ended.

Obama, though, is almost more of a symbol than an actual agent of change—at least so far. If nothing else, this award seems incredibly premature. Why not wait until he’s at least been president for an entire term, after he’s actually had enough time to make good on his promises?

This award, says the Nobel quote, is for Obama's diplomacy which "is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

Did we get it right, "...shared by the majority of the world's population"?

Just nine months in office, Obama gets the Nobel for being what he's not.

As Peggy Noonan says in the Wall Street Journal, the Nobel Peace Prize, whenever it's awarded to a politician, is an "award given by liberals to liberals.

President Obama has won the award for what he may achieve in the future.