Before I stand up and state my views on Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize, I have to admit that I have never quite been taken in by him. My sympathies have always been more Democratic than Republican, and after eight years of Dubya Bush, I would definitely not have wanted another Republican in the White House, but Obama, I could never bring myself to trust. Sure he moved crowds the way a Hillary Clinton could not even start to do, but it was precisely what made me mistrust him. Swooning crowds are all very well in a rock concert, but on the campaign trail? I bought his personal messages of Hope and Change, but was never convinced he had a clue to actualizing either. His months in the White House haven't really gone too far in making me change my opinion, and I am still at the 'lets wait and watch phase'.
Which is why I was pretty shocked to hear that the Committee had awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama. I am not saying that I can think of a dozen people who deserve the Prize more than he did, because I can't think of even one name off-hand. But I do know that he hasn't done anything yet that merits awarding the Prize to him. Seven years later (or even five), he could possibly have been a candidate, not yet. What if he sends his troops into Afghanistan next year in an undeclared war, or into Argentina- will the Prize then be revoked? And what if he completes his term, or two, in office without making any substantial difference - can a Prize awarded for promise be revoked if the promise fails to materialize as most promises do?
Nobody would be happier than me, if during his tenure(s) Obama proves that awarding the Prize to him was emminently justified- after all, as the President of the most powerful nation in the world, his capacity to do good is unmatched by anyone else. But to have awarded the Prize to him now, is, I feel, entirely premature.