In the midst of all this brouhaha over whether Al Gore deserved to win the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, consider this: the Norwegian Nobel Committee's answer why Mahatma Gandhi never won the prize.
Mohandas Gandhi (1869-1948) has become the strongest symbol of non-violence in the 20th century. It is widely held – in retrospect – that the Indian national leader should have been the very man to be selected for the Nobel Peace Prize. He was nominated several times, but was never awarded the prize. Why?
At least Ghandi tried.
Thats ok, because the Nobel Peace prize means nothing now, it has been shamed and marginalized. True heroes do not require sunshine blown up their asses.
-Twitchings
Once the immediate global peace post-war issues were out of the way, Gandhi (seen as a *regional* peace leader) was at the top of the list again. He was the leading contender when he was murdered by another peace loving Hindu in 1948. It's widely believed he would have won that year had his compatriot not blown him away. Nobody else is to blame for that, so stop looking for conspiracies. They don't give the award posthumously (yet), but the Noble Committee is such a bunch of weak knees, I'm sure they will someday. And then Abraham Lincoln can get one, and John Lennon, and Princess Diana ... sigh.