When the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded each year it is inevitable that we have a collective conversation on whether the winner deserves the prize. The 2009 winner was announced last week and it was a shocker: President Barack Obama.
I support Obama but I don’t deify him. Those that do are as wrong as those that deified George Bush. I voted for Obama mainly because I didn’t believe in John McCain anymore. I was worried about Obama’s lack of experience, but like a lot of people I wanted to believe in his message of hope.
I am disappointed in the president’s desultory performance so far. I try to temper that with the fact that he’s only been in office for nine months, but there is little to be excited about. There are too many projects started and not getting finished or being completed in a half-assed fashion so we end up with watered down solutions to problems.
What I do agree with are his attempts to broker better relations with republicans and with other countries. George Bush called himself a uniter and not a divider and he was the exact opposite. He divided the citizens of this country and separated us from the rest of the world. Obama has had many meetings with republican leaders and leaders of other countries trying to bridge the gap the Bush administration created.
The operative word is “trying” or “attempting”. Partly because of limited time in office and partly because of reluctance by the other parties involved, Obama hasn’t accomplished any of these goals.
The Nobel Peace Prize should be for a person’s body of work or for one grand accomplishment that’s effect is felt worldwide. As much as I admire Obama for trying, he has not succeeded yet. I believe the Nobel committee made a mistake.