What's the difference now? Answer is: those who called him a failure are the failures, and source of it. W. must be full of Jeolousy tonight!
I don't know much about the prize but is it normal to give it out based on potential and not actual results?
And Obambi's can be judged on aspirations, separate from his actions. Results are the one thing liberals know nothing about and the very thing they refuse to ever look at. It's like "his intention is to be a great trader." But he lost 1 million trading and still wins the best trader award for "aspiring" to be the best in a matter of two weeks! But God did he aspire to be great!
Officially it is on results. From the Wiki: According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." and Unlike the scientific and literary Nobel Prizes, usually issued in retrospect, often two or three decades after the awarded achievement, the Peace Prize has been awarded for more recent or immediate achievements http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize A brief review of winners and non winners shows that there are considerations far greater than achievements in promoting peace. Indeed, achievements in promoting peace are not required at all.
Itsak Rabin also got it on potential to make peace, because it could not have been based on his past achievements which were more in the realm of making terrorism. Obama deserves it!
If you look at the other awards you can see that Obama is a perfect fit: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17899-best-of-the-ig-nobel-prizes-2009.html