I can't been the only person in the country who woke to the announcement from the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee this morning and thought, "What the fuck? Am I dreaming?"

In fact, I'm willing to wager Barack Obama himself had a similar response when he received the call.  "Really?"   The next thought might have been, "Is there any way I can politely decline?"

It is an open question whether the award will aid in Obama's agenda items the Committee highlighted as their reasons for the award.  And it's clear this is an aspirational award.  Domestically, I don't see how it helps Obama's agenda.  All the award does is highlight to the American people the fact that Obama has still a lot to do.

The Nobel Peace Prize serves an  important function by highlighting and supporting work making the world better, but they don't have a perfect track record.  The committee often takes a risk with people and entities who may gone on to do things that aren't so commendable.  (They've also awarded people who have done non-commendable things in the past but then see the light to make peace, like F.W. de Klerk .)

But Obama?  Really?  What has he done besides being elected and making some important promises?

Let's not lose sight of why Obama's approach and aspirations are potentially world changing.  The committee made some valid points, writing:

"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."

The members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee must have been seriously worried about the long-term effacacy of the U.N. and international agreements due to the outright hostility from the preivious American president's administration.  They must also think that Obama has generated a huge turnaround.  If so, they are naive.  One just has to look at Congress and likely future presidential candidates to see that Obama may be an American blip when it comes to respect for multilateralism and the rule of international law. Maybe Obama is fostering long-term change, but it's iffy to say at this time.

The Committee also mentions the climatic challenges and strengthening of democracy and human rights.  While Obama's stated approach on these fronts is more encouraging that his predecessors, I'm scratching my head to think of examples that Obama has had a real impact yet on climate change, democracy or human rights.  If he does, that'd be great!  I'm still waiting.

The one aspiration that almost justifies Nobel Peace Prize consideration is on the nuclear weapons front.  Obama's brave and prominent stance to work towards a world free of nuclear weapons is the most likely to provide real results for the betterment of our world.  Already, Obama has resurrected the dialog with Russia to get back on track on nuclear arms reductions.  This is an impressive accomplishment after eight years of the Bush administration and Putin and company doing everything they can to antagonize each other and scrap previous agreements.

Obama has also recognized the problem of nuclear proliferation and has taken more quiet steps to help secure nuclear devices in former Soviet republics by promising additional U.S. support.

The impact of the American president taking the prominent position that nuclear weapons are dangerous and unnecessary in order to be a Superpower  cannot be overstated.  While this is unlikely to immediately persuade Iran and North Korea to turn back the clock on their nuclear ambitions, one can imagine that we might be in a very different world if an American president took this position twenty years ago.

While the United States continuous to refine its abilities to deliver nuclear warheads and stop incoming warheads, it has seriously lacked moral authority to persuade other countries to refrain from developing or expanding their nuclear weapon capabilities.  While the Pentagon was working to have "bunker buster" mini-nukes in the last decade, one can see why many regional powers, both friends and foes, aspired to join the nuclear family and play catch up to the United States.

Still, why the rush?  Can't one give Obama a couple years to get some fulfilled promises under his belt?  I'm sure there are some other worthy nominees for the Peace Prize.

Perhaps I'm old fashioned.  I'm the type of person who objects to bridges, schools, airports being named after people still alive, but I'm not advocating the Norwegian Nobel Committee wait until people are dead or near dead to award prizes.  It's a little exciting to see the Committee taking risks to award people in the midst of accomplishing their worthy goals in order to highlight contemporary problems.  Another year couldn't have hurt, could it?