Obama deserved the Nobel Prize

Obama didn’t do the most or best work for the fraternity between nations, amongst nominees. Take a look at who else was nominated that year: Denis Mukwege, Sima Samar, Ghazi bin Muhammad, Greg Mortenson, Piedad Córdoba, and Wei Jingsheng.[7] In that list we have the father of Chinese democracy, the doctor who’s devoted his life to ameliorate the suffering of women brutalized in Africa and a woman who’s dedicated her life to end the Colombian civil war. Clearly, Obama with his one month in office is out of his league here.Mr. Nobel’s will said, "The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: /- - -/ one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."So, while perhaps in the future he “may” do some good work towards peace but at the point he was nominated he clearly hasn’t. He hadn’t done the most or best work, he hadn’t abolished or reduced armies and certainly didn’t hold a peace congress.Promotion is thrown around a bit by my opponent so let’s get a firm definition. Promotion as used in Mr. Nobel’s will means, “furtherance or encouragement” [8]. But even if Obama promoted peace conferences he didn’t hold them; the requirements say “holding AND promotion”.All of these “accomplishments” are for one month since the nomination submission was due February 1st. However, most are unremarkable. Obama met with the ambassador and commander in Iraq – that’s an accomplishment? Obama rescinded the Mexico City policy – So what, every Democrat rescinds it and every Republican reinstates it (hardly groundbreaking). And what does appointing a special envoy for the environment have to do with promoting fraternity between nations or peace congresses? The only two left is the ordered closure of Gitmo (still hasn’t happened) and the clarification of interrogation procedures. Those are pretty weak accomplishments when compared to the other nominees.Obama’s speech in Prague was April 5, 2009 - well past the time nominations were submitted [1]. Pro should check his dates better. There’s no way this was considered during the nomination.Some glaring problems with Mr. Gore’s analysis:1. The President’s first speech to the UN was September 23, 2009 [2]. 2. His abandonment of the missile defense program in Europe was declared September 17, 2009 [3]. 3. Russia has much closer ties to Iran than the US and if it really wanted to throw its weight behind forcing Iranian compliance it would have by now.My opponent is wrong about Obama qualifying for peace congresses. The only definition I found was from Wikipedia so I’ll quote that, “A peace congress, in international relations, has at times been defined in a way that would distinguish it from a peace conference (usually defined as a diplomatic meeting to decide on a peace treaty), as an ambitious forum to carry out dispute resolution in international affairs, and prevent wars. This idea was widely promoted during the nineteenth century, anticipating the international bodies that would be set up in the twentieth century with comparable aims.”[4] With that definition, his accomplishments don’t promote peace congresses and he hasn’t held any. [5] Next, my opponent goes on to talk about who Obama wanted to meet. It’s irrelevant especially with hindsight being 20/20 – Iran hasn’t budged a bit.So let’s compare and contrast Presidents then, President Wilson pushed for a League of Nations but was unable to get Congress to go along as the party in power had switched during his term. [6] But to say he merely spoke about it as an abstract concept as Obama had done prior to him winning the same award is ludicrous.Conclusion:What my opponent fails to mention is that the real reason Obama received the award was for being not Bush. But even that hasn’t panned out. Gitmo’s still open, the start of a war against Libya which still has a lot of pundits scratching their heads. You can’t be serious? He’s failed to live up to the overhyped expectations as any pragmatist would have guessed (real life isn’t like ideologue’s utopias). Obama may be an excellent President and may accomplish much more but at the point in time the award was given hadn’t done enough to earn it especially when compared to other nominees and recipients.Sources:1. http://www.nobelprize.org...2. http://articles.cnn.com...3. http://articles.cnn.com...4. http://en.wikipedia.org...5. http://www.indiana.edu...6. http://www.nobelprize.org...7. http://www.independent.co.uk...8. www.dictionary.com