You could argue that President Obama’s diverse, incredibly mobilized coalition of Americans during his campaign constitutes “most or best work for fraternity between nations,” nations being used loosely to describe nationalities and races.

Plenty of other people could have won the Peace Prize (i.e. his fellow nominees). President Obama wasn’t the only person deservedly nominated. IMHO, it’s myopic of Americans to suggest that we because we don’t know of anyone else who could have won it, there IS no nobody else. Two weeks into his term, there was not much the President could have done to reduce standing armies or to physically effect a change in an armed conflict. And no one would expect him to–it was too soon. It is indeed thrilling to witness the change that this man’s very presence has had on the world, but you cannot quantify hope; you cannot measure hope on paper or verify its effect the way you can tally the reduction in a nation’s weapons.

But perhaps that’s why the committee chose him: hope is something so rare that it need not be weighed or tested, but applauded and praised. It’s just miracle enough that one man has inspired so many.

Also, simple/logical disagreement does not–and has never–constituted “hate” Thanks!

I sincerely hope Obama lives up to this honor and all the expectations surrounding him as president. But my fear is that people are pinning WAY too much hope on this man and are risking severe disappointment. Many people are still blinded by the whole “Black man in office” thing and aren’t looking at him with an unbiased, critical eye.

So, I wait with blissful anticipation for Mr. President to make his stamp on the world and bring about real change and peace where he can. At this point, hope is NOT going to save the world