I think this a fair take. Some White House critics apparently need to be reminded that the President doesn't get to write the laws, that only Congress has the power to do that.

The hope has to be that, where current sentiment in Congress is not yet permitting the changes in various policy areas--the financial crisis, health care, global warming and alternative energy, and direct federal government job creation efforts as examples that you alluded to in your fine post yesterday--small (inadequate) steps in a positive direction now can lead to larger, adequate ones...soon. (esteemed cafe denizen jason everett miller's POV)

Two theories of change in play here, obviously--there is also the point of view that says this first year or two are his and our country's best chance, and/or that the small, inadequate steps Congress looks to be taking on these issues will take those issues off the table, or make it more difficult, not less, to get more substantial action.

I think those of us who are committed to pressing for fully adequate measures to address these issues will probably need to find ways to celebrate and praise movement in a positive direction while keeping the pressure on to build on those steps soon, not 3 or 4 or 5 years down the road. Looking at the experience with FDR, there was no letup. It was one initiative after the other, year after year for a good 4 or 5 years.

BTW, I don't see this issue as a matter of the "left" or the "base" of the Democratic party "versus" the party "moderates" or "centrists".

On every one of these issues, I think the case is compelling that to really address them in a satisfactory way, stronger steps will need to be taken than Congress currently appears ready to take. I don't see that as primarily an ideological comment or phenomenon. Insisting that big problems be addressed with bold, fully adequate measures does not characterize the advocate as a member of some "fringe" element. Rather, it suggests that she or he is seeing the situation clearly.

There are some elected officials who are cautious by temparament--reluctant to make big chances--while being substantively largely in agreement that big rather than small changes are needed. They need to be encouraged and prodded to step up to the magnitude of those problems which they themselves privately know to be the case.

I think this is yet another example of a false and counterproductive framing of the dynamics as a battle between the Democratic party's "left" or "base" "versus" its "center".

Some how I think we are all missing the point. In our eyes, Obama hasn't accomplished much. In Europe's eyes, and the world's, having the right man at the right time in the right place has brought sanity back to the global stage. They are thankful for that.

Why we don't see that is because Obama is us, nothing special, best intentions, want to build, share our values, etc. Bush was like us, but he was our dark side. he said all the things that run through our minds but know better than to articulate them.

So maybe we can't see what Obama has achieved, but Europe and the world are saying "whew!"

If the Nobel peace prize was about achieving, and not aspiring, how many fewer would have been awarded? Here's the list. Figure it out yourself.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/

Did anyone on this list achieve an unqualified success? How many achieved little or nothing at all?

This kind of punky, self-righteous essay is what I've come to expect from Professor Reich, a man I used to admire.

(repost):having studied the nobel peace prize a bit (having been involved in a peace prize related organization and having had the opportunity to meet with a laureate), i think anyone who actually looked at the criteria that the peace prize committee actually uses (and has used in the past) would find that 'peace' can mean many many different things and the purpose of awarding the prize is very political in nature in that the awarding of the prize is itself designed to have an impact on creating peace or advancing causes related to peace. just as the awarding of macarthur 'genius' grants is more about what the recipients can accomplish with having won the award than it is about acknowledging past accomplishments, these kinds of awards are meant to be purposeful rather than congratulatory. rather than asking what obama has accomplished to deserve the award, the correct question to ask is, what is the nobel committee trying to accomplish by awarding the prize to obama.

This incorrect post really annoys me. It's lazy, and you're repeating Republican talking points by rote, that have unfortunately gotten *way* too much currency already in the MSM.

Putin was making speeches not too long ago about the United States being a drunken knife-slasher of a country. And making directly military threats in response to Bush-Cheney's hyper-aggressive provocations. That's a fact. And it was a scary time, whether you realize it or not.

And as actual measures, already (1) the missiles are out in Eastern Europe, (2) the masturbatory delirium of expanding NATO into the former Russian empire is terminated, and the environment is improved to the point that Hillary Clinton and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov were beaming at one another and sharing jokes delightedly as with U.S. support an mega-breakthrough between Turkey and Armenia. "Reset" button.

You do a real disservice IMHO by emptily repeating this blarney about nothing having been done. If you don't know what you are talking about, you always have the options of (1) doing research, or (2) keeping quiet. I wish you had exercised one or the other.

Seems to me that the Nobel Prize is much more useful as a tool to help achieve a goal rather than an award to someone's work who is already finished.

With regard to goals already achieved, I can't think of anyone who has done more to put a damper on the pro-war dynamic than Barrack Obama. I cannot think of anyone that the war mongers hate more than Barrack Obama.

The Nobel Committee made a wise choice, at exactly the most effective time.