I'm gonna perch on a fence and not decide for now. I do think that Obama has done enough for peace to deserve consideration, but he could do much, much more.

I will say that I find it strangely appropriate that he wasn't awarded the prize for what he has done so much as what it is hoped he will do.

I think right now Obama is taking US foreign policy in exactly the direction Europe and the global community wants: Leadership without unilateralism. This award has a lot to do with that change of tone. The world community likes having the US take a leadership role on problems—because frankly it's hard to get anything done without US support—but us non-superpowers also like to feel that our voices are being heard. This prize is a stamp of approval for the rebranding of the United States in the eyes of the world.

For whatever it's worth, here's what the President of Israel thinks of this:

“Very few leaders if at all were able to change the mood of the entire world in such a short while with such a profound impact. You provided the entire humanity with fresh hope, with intellectual determination, and a feeling that there is a lord in heaven and believers on earth.” Mr. Peres, who won the peace prize with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat in 1994 following the Oslo Accords, added: “Under your leadership, peace became a real and original agenda. And from Jerusalem, I am sure all the bells of engagement and understanding will ring again. You gave us a license to dream and act in a noble direction.”

Does a change in the mood and new hope for the future justify a peace prize? I'm really not sure.

Here's the thing.  I think Hilary Clinton would of did that as well.

Pretty much anybody not George W Bush or seen as him would of did that.

It feels like George W Bush was such a disaster that the next guy gets an award just for not being him.

Since nothing he's done has reached a level of other Presidents not named George W Bush or like... James Buchanon or something.

I can has nobel prize?

I was quite shocked when I heard the news. He maybe deserve it in the future but now I only feel sad for the Zimbabwe guy.

And win the hearts of the USA citizens so they will never elect someone like Bush anymore?

In that case you may say the Noble Prize Jury deserves a Noble prize aswell =p.

If anything I think Bush should of won.  For being such a bad president he united the entire world in the single opinion that he sucked.

Well... to be fair he's popular in Africa.

I honestly don't think Clinton could have. The whole reason Obama beat Clinton was because he was capable of projecting a positive message of hope and change and making it sound genuine and inspirational. Clinton's attempts to be emotional and passionate just came across as contrived and disingenuous. Clinton just looked like a change from a Republican power elite family to a Democrat power elite family.

I don't think that any ol' schmuck could have repaired the reputation and respect that Bush Jr. cost the US so quickly and effortlessly as Obama has. It's not just his party and policies which did the trick, it's a combination of so many factors, including his oratory, his charisma, and yes, even his name and skin colour. His demeanor contrasts Bush's so starkly that he presents to the world a clean break from Bush's unilateralism and aggression, even though he's perpetuating so many of his predecessor's contentious policies.

You can call it a shallow rebranding, but things like tone, appearances, and symbols can make a very real difference in the world. Every marketing exec knows that. And Obama is one of the most powerful spokesmen for Brand America that we've seen in quite some time.

I actually think Obama beat Clinton because she had a shitty advisor.  Her campaign manager told her to attack the positive well meaning black guy.

Which may have worked for a male poltician, but in our day in age people just called her a bitch, racist etc.

She wouldn't of had the same problem attacking McCain.

Had not Obama won she'd of been fine.  I mean Bill Clinton is still universally loved world wide... and just what people were basically wanting back again when Bush was screwing up. 

Well, since this is all hypothetical, I guess there's plenty of space for us to disagree.

Like most people, I'd prefer to see the peace prize go to substantive accomplishments rather than symbolic ones, but I do respect symbolic victories. It's obvious that the Nobel committee is hoping to help Obama transform his symbolic achievements into substantive ones, so I'm sitting on the fence until we see whether the effort is wasted or not.

They should have given it as a joint prize to Gordon Brown aswell, now that would have made my lol.

Obama should have only won it if he pulled out of Afganistan. He should have sent more troops in to train the Afgans then pulled out. Simple, they could then handle the problem on their own saving the US and UK billions of dollars in a problem that we DONT need to be involved in.

Conservatives in. They want to train the afgans and as soon as they are deemed capable we can bring the troops home.