Like Obama? Give him a prize

The closest thing to Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize from the left-leaning Euros in 2009 is Sally Field winning the Academy Award from left-leaning Hollywood in 1985.

Call it a gush-fest.

You'll remember her acceptance speech for its faux fawning sentimentality. Field had already won an Oscar for 1979's "Norma Rae," but then she got her second one for "Places in the Heart," and decided that since she was among friends, she would let her hair down.

"...I've wanted more than anything to have your respect. The first time I didn't feel it, but this time I feel it, and I can't deny the fact that you like me; right now you like me!"

Apparently, that's also what we learned from the Nobel committee: They like Barack Obama; right now they like him.

OK, to his credit, President Obama has not been "gushy" in his acceptance of the award. Indeed, he has hinted that he doesn't think he deserves it and he will donate the $1.4 million in prize money to charity. Good for him.

But we should not be too harsh on Sally Field either; after all, she actually did accomplish something prior to being honored with her Oscars. The same cannot be said of President Obama and the Nobel Prize.

After all, the nomination deadline was just 12 days after Obama was sworn in as president. That didn't leave him much time to become "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses," as Alfred Nobel's will dictates for the prize winner.

Therefore, the prize must have been awarded for something Obama did prior to becoming president, and let's face it, President Obama didn't do much before he became president.

Which leads us to the obvious conclusion - he was nominated and chosen because he beat a Republican in the election. He was honored not because of his own slim accomplishments on the world stage, or even in community organizing, but because he is the "anti-Bush."

Indeed, one committee member - Aagot Valle, a lawmaker for Norway's Socialist Left party - confirmed that when he said, "Those who were in support of Bush in his belief in war solving problems, on rearmament, and that nuclear weapons play an important role ... probably won't be happy."

There was also this puzzling bit of explanation from the Nobel committee's chairman, Thorbjoern Jagland: "Some people say, and I understand it, isn't it premature? Too early?. Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now. It is now that we have the opportunity to respond - all of us."

Say what? If we wait three years to actually see what the president accomplishes, it will be too late to award him the Peace Prize? Just what dread future does the Nobel committee envision?

Perhaps they are worried that with President Obama overseeing war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the Middle East remaining a tinderbox, with nuclear disarmament a near impossibility, and with climate-change treaties facing an increasingly cool reception, there is almost no hope that the president will be able to win the Peace Prize based on his record. It is therefore best to honor him for his rhetoric of change and for the committee's hopes of a better future.

Hope and change. Where have we heard that before?