I guess there can't be much claim that the Nobel Peace Prize is apolitical. When Arafat won in 1994, you could chalk it up as a fluke (perhaps saying that to award it to Perez and Rabin but not Top Dog Terrorist would make the prize look overly Israeli-friendly, that it takes both sides to move the peace process). When the Carter won in 2002, you could say coincidence. With Gore winning this year for a movie version of a hyperbole-laden Powerpoint slide deck...you'd have to say 3 data points makes a trend. I'm not sure what this does to merit the Peace Price. I can clearly see the case for past recipients -- Schweitzer worked for decades before getting it, and Mandela (despite his bad points) is an easy case to make as well. Heck, Mother Theresa would be another easy example. Those were all major efforts, sustained over long periods of time, often with great personal hardship or risk. Today, it's being awarded for the redemption of a failed politician for a really sweet (and blurry on the details, by his own admission) slide deck with movie distribution.