Disenchanted as I am with incompetent left-wing parties this side of the pond, I'll buck the trend here and say that I think the award going to Bazza is as justified as any alternative.
(Although I did think Morgan Tsvangirai was a more obvious candidate)
First off, calling the award 'political' is like calling water 'wet' - The Nobel Peace Prize (as opposed to lit, chem, phys etc.) is and always was an opportunity for the reformed vikings to prove that they like warmth and fuzziness and have turned their backs on raping sheep in Yorkshire at axe point.
As for the merits, the full citation sheds light and provides decent justification:
The Nobel Citation wrote:
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples.
The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics.
Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play.
Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts.
The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations.
Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting.
Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future.
His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman.
The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges".
So the headlines are:
Obama has embraced diplomacy in a way the Dubya never understood, and Clinton handled with little finesse. His acceptance that dialogue (even with nasty smelly shouty people) is worth considering is refreshing to most of the rest of the world.
The fact that he's talking seriously about anti-proliferation planning seemed to get the scandinavians' thongs moist too.
I think the biggest thing (reading between the lines) is bringing USA back into the UN in a meaningful way. Under the last administration, USA diminished UN's ability to influence the quirkier nations like China, Russia and Korea. Under Obama, there's now closer alignment between the big biys (look at the world stance on N Korea - Russia and China spent the last few years saying "Leave 'em alone Bush, ya big doody-head", while now it's more "OK Korea - stop being a knob-head 'cause we're all getting a bit pissed at you")
Finally, the fact that the White House is speaking in a level way about Palestine & Israel probably swung it. Without pissing on the Jewish lobby, Obama's taking a measured stance on Israeli occupation of foreign territory, suggesting to Hamas that AK-47s tend to upset the Israelis probably sounds sweet to the Nobel dudes.
On the other hand, it would be nice to think that it was a conspiracy to tip Rush Limbaugh's angina over the edge.
