I will say that the most decent recepient of the Nobel Prize was Jean Paul Sartre.  When he was offered the prize he refused it, because he knew fully well that it was all about bourgeois politics.  During the Cold War half of the Nobel prizes were awarded on purely political grounds.  The ones in economics are a joke.  All that they ever praised was free market economics and how to get rich without any regard for the poor.  Economics as a barren science that has no concern with the human consequences of the acquisition of wealth.  Black, Scholes and Friedman come to mind.

The prize going to Obama feels like nothing more than helping the man build his reputation.  From what I have seen, he gave this speech at the UN in which he talked about a nuclear-free world when he knew fully well that the US will NEVER give up its monopoly of military might.  His speech felt more like a political move to put pressure on Iran and North Korea.  He called for multi-party talks between Israel and Palestine, but is unwilling to take an impartial approach and stop the western slant in Israel's favour.  Maybe I am out of touch with the news, but is there anything that really promotes world peace other than trying to fix the diplomatic mess that the Bush administration left behind?  If fixing the previous administration's diplomatic mess qualifies, then he deserves it.

According to the Nobel committee "Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics"

Anybody other than the Bush Necons could achieve that.  A monkey in a suit could do more for world peace than Bush and his clique ever did, that is for sure!

Well, now they have raised the bar on Obama and the expectations will be great.  Whether he can deliver is up to Congress in the end because there is nothing much he can do without the aproval of America's  elected representatives, and as we saw with healthcare, the Republicans will try their best to derail his efforts.