Frankly, the committee jumped the gun by awarding Obama the prize. In an attempt to justify Obama’s policies and perhaps give the award new relevance, the committee simply did themselves, Obama, and the prize itself a huge disservice.

Norwegian Nobel Committee Chairman Thorbjorn Jagland said, “We are not awarding the prize for what may happen in the future, but for what he has done in the previous year. We would hope this will enhance what he is trying to do.” Jagland is right that Obama is trying — very hard — to promote peace in this world. But he doesn’t have much to show for it at this point, especially in the past year.

Obama spent the past year running a multimillion-dollar presidential campaign. Now that he’s in office, he has an entire staff of people working for him, funded by taxpayer dollars. Any results of peaceful diplomacy on his watch are the product of dozens of staff members working to inform and advise him. Although the work Obama has done, and will do, certainly is important, it’s just not quite as impressive as that done by lone crusaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. or Mother Teresa.

Realistically speaking, the Nobel Peace Prize shouldn’t be used as an affirmation of being on the right track. It’s not an investment in the future — that’s what loans are for. And an affirmation of a good platform usually is called “winning an election.”

Winning the Nobel Peace Prize actually might be a step backward for Obama and his efforts toward peace. The award simply invites further scrutiny to Obama’s record in office. In an attempt to justify Obama’s efforts for peace, they’ve only magnified what he has not yet accomplished. A Nobel Prize does not overshadow the fact that Obama has not yet closed Guantanamo Bay, pulled out of the war in Iraq and is considering sending 40,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

Already, Obama’s opponents are jumping on him for winning the prize. Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh has even said that winning the Nobel Prize is a “greater embarrassment” for Obama than losing the Olympics. But winning the award is not Obama’s fault. Before pouncing on him for supposedly “tarnishing” such an esteemed award, they should remember that he is responsible only for that which the Nobel committee awarded him — nothing.

Yet we would have been happy to see Obama win the Nobel Peace Prize 20 years from now, after he has left office and most of his legacy is behind him. But the fact of the matter is that he simply has not accomplished enough in his life to merit such a prestigious award.

Although Obama has done little to earn the prize, he has all the resources necessary to bring about peace at his disposal. He has most of America behind him, a majority in Congress, and apparently five adoring Norwegians who have great expectations.

Let’s just hope Obama acts on them.