Well, just for starters he has moved the nation much closer to legitamet health care reform than any leader since Nixon.

He did this by working out an armistace with those who killed health care reform the last time, and allowed a bill to grow organicly, Now that some of those enemies of reform are now regretting their truce, and getting into the fight, they find themselves likely a day late and a dollar short.

Yes, no bill has passed yet, but think about how much farther he is than Clinton was at this time, all while balancing a shaky economy and two wars on his back.

As far as the Wars go, he has committed (as he said on the campaign trail he would) to decreasing our efforts in Iraq (our war of choice) and increasing our effortsin Afgahnistan (our war of necessity) that is what he promised, and that is what he is doing.

And as far as his peace prize goes, that will be argued for years. However, there is one real concrete accomplishment he has acheived in his short tenure. He has returned the most powerful richest nation on earth to the global bargaining table, not to dictate, but to lead. Leadership is far more complex than just saying they are with us or agianst us, it is the effort to convince others to be with us. Obama has actually done a stellar job at that, working with the Russians, and the Chinese to reign in rouge states, adn theoretically bringing the world to peace. Did Carter do more? Did Roosevelt? It can't really be said. Such a prize is a moment in time, and always speaks more of what one hopes for than what might actually be.

There was an idea of George W. Bush, for religous fanatics he was a fellow traveler out to convert the world to the one true branch of evangelical christianity that they belonged to. For Fiscal conservatives, he was the commonsense business man out to make sure that tax dollars did not rest with a government that did not need them. And for the left he was of course History's greatest monster.

In truth he failed to be anyone's idea and was a genreally speaking conservative moderate, who overspent because he felt he needed to ensure the regular running of the nation and the world.

The same is of course true for Obama, and the same was true for Bush Sr. Regan, and Clinton and Carter too.

The problem with the differnce between idea and reality isn't that the difference exists, it's that each person is certain the nation agreed with their idea when they voted for or against the person in power today. So if you are a birther, you are certain that you and everyone else see through the facade that is Obama, and if you are liberal, you are certain that everyone who voted for him did so with the understanding that they voteing for universal health care and an end to all wars.

None of that was ever really the case. But the idea is often more powerful than the reality.

All that being said, great piece by Tom. It's good to see him pointing his mighty pen in the direction of democrats and well republicans again.

Why can't you have boy and girl superheros.

The fact of the matter is, boys toys have been gender nutral since at least the 80's with girl adventurers to save the day alongside their male counter parts.

Check out Ms. Marvel in the Super Hero Squad, girls are encouraged to break free and play with boy toys all the time.

Yes there are girl toys, that boys are not equally encouraged to play with. But is that a problem, or is that just a marketing choice.

For very little kids, Dora and Diego are generally gender nutral, as are all the backyardigans et al. Once you get older you might see girl toys, but generally speaking there are no boy toys, only toys that boys are more intersted in playing with.

The Peace Prize has a very strange lineage.

Note that it is often given to those who have long made war but now find a way to make peace.

It is also given to various activists whose actions (Like Martin Luther King Jr. or Mother Theresa) did not specificly do anything to avert war or further global peace, but aknowledged the basic human dignity of all people.

Roosevelt for the the treaty of portsmouth and Wilson for the league of nations certainly furthered the cause of global peace (if only temporarily), but they are the exceptions not the rule.

In many ways perhaps this prize should have been given to the American People, and not the president for makeing the concious choices that have lead to the tone change in global communications.

I guess they just felt that was too many names for the plack.

Let's be honest, this award mark's the president's return to the role of "Leader of the Free World".

Ironically, for all the talk of American exceptionalism, GWB utterly unwound America's place in the world, made us just one of many nations each equal in their choice to make war or peace.

Obama returns the U.S. to first nation status, the leader who makes peace, or makes war unilaterally and expects the world to follow along obediently.

Clearly, in Oslo at least, they welcome the return of the king.