. . . to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.I think you can make a credible case for all three of these criteria on Obama's behalf. But pretty much any US President is in a position to come out on top there every year if he's interested in peace and committed to multilateralism. So, only in the weakest sense of the term do I think that Obama "earned" the prize.
Over the course of the day, the rationale for Obama's selection became a bit clearer. In an interview with the New York Times, the Nobel Peace Prize's new committee chairman said:
It’s important for the committee to recognize people who are struggling and idealistic, but we cannot do that every year. We must from time to time go into the realm of realpolitik. It is always a mix of idealism and realpolitik that can change the world.He then went on to use the examples of Willy Brandt, who won the prize in 1971 while Chancellor of Germany for his policy of rapprochement with the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), despite the fact that his policy had yielded few results at the time he won.
This seems somewhat akin to handing out gold medals in the Olympics to the athletes with the most promise. The point of prizes like Olympic medals and the Noble Peace Prize is to reward achievement, not promise of it. I strongly believe that Obama is going to achieve things during his time in office, but he hasn't yet. But giving him the Prize now degrades its value. So, when Obama wins again for something like brokering a deal between the Israelis and Palestinians, it will mean just a little less.
Update: Hat tip to my friend TD for emailing me a particularly well-phrased question that helped me work out my thoughts on this.