It's "activism Media". Not sure that's a term, but it should be.

They figure if Obama goes into peace talks at the "Nobel Peace Prize Winning President", people will listen to him more.

If's not for what he has done (nothing), it's for what he is trying to accomplish (which is a lot, but in the end will be nothing).

Oh, and as for not starting the wars, he has increased the efforts in both. He will also most likely be the president that invades Iran.

Well Al Gore was part of the IPCC.   Which I guess now that you mention it didn't really have much to do with peace.  Though I mean they didn't have a chance of winning an actual science award considering their dubious science standards.

Though then again you could argue that helping to slow or stop global warming does stop future wars for resources.

As for De Klerk.  He lifted the ban on the ANC and let go of Mandela... who was the joint winner.

They always give the prize to both sides of a historic agreement.

Not a middle finger, so much as "we're not going to let you do whatever you want and keep supporting you all the while,"

A well overdue policy, imo.

Who's next? Paris Hilton?

im assuming its because he's working toward nuclear dissarmarment and peace in the middle east that he got it, still seems a little generous, but let's face it, if he hadn't won it, most of us wouldn't have cared, great way to raise publicity for the Nobel Prize if nothing else

Just for the record, that particular diplomat (Martti Ahtisaari) was also the president of Finland from 1994-2000.

And I agree it's silly - people like Ahtisaari and Nelson Mandela spent decades of their lives advocating peace and tolerance to win the award, while Obama makes a nice speech or two and takes it by a landslide.

I don't have anything against the man, but that's just ridiculous.

@SciFiBoy: I fail to see why the Nobel Prize would need any kind of publicity stunt, let alone something like this.

Nobel Prizes stopped meaning anything as soon as Al Gore won one.

As much as I appreciate how vocal Obama has been, he hasn't really put his foot down on a lot of issues, and he hasn't done enough to warrant a Nobel Peace Prize thus far.

....I thought this was a joke when I first heard about it......

Kinda sad really.

Nothing else to say when an award that is prestigious precisely because of the impressive resumes of past recipients, is awarded merely on the envisioned future resume and unfulfilled rhetoric of a man whose biggest accomplishment to date is being elected. It's a slap in the face to those who have actually earned this honor to anoint this kind of prestige onto someone who is so obviously undeserving at this stage of his career.

It really puts Obama in a bind as well. It doesn't sound like he lobbied for this...so what is he supposed to do? Reject it? Not likely, and even if he did he would obviously face even more criticism.....

Ironically I think what is a pretty blatant partisan move by the committee does more harm than good to Obama here in the US. He is already fighting the perception of being long on promises/talk and short on results (SNL just did a skit on this, and they are far from alone in the criticism).

All of that seems to support the notion that they awarded it to him in the hopes of shaping his agenda...which if that is the case I hope he summons the balls to reject the award and openly rebuke the committee (which he almost certainly won't because its not smart politics).

Given his background, and given his political position, I think he is far more likely to accept the award and try to use it to his advantage rather than risk creating some international drama.

Laughable.

But the Nobel Peace price is a joke anyway. A political and very socialist institution.

Luckily media is very critical of this, even in Sweden.

It's all so PC, only cos he's black (in combination of being left wing of course, but a white leftie guy would never get the price so quickly). I feel sad for humanity.

Sharon lol, no. You must mean Rabin?