Really, they shouldn't have given Obama the Nobel Prize

It slipped out as I gazed upon the news -- Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize.

A strange reaction, since I like the guy, generally, voted for him, think he's doing an OK job in the face of strong, sometimes crazy opposition.

But I'm not a foaming devotee, not the false stereotype those who hate him like to conjure up to give themselves something to sneer at. Obama's too political for my liking, too cautious, deferential to his party, timid on gay rights.

But he's trying, and his job just got harder with this goofy prize. Not just because the Nobel Peace Prize will churn up his foes like piranhas in bloody water. Anything involving him sets them off.

But here they have a point -- the Nobel Peace Prize is tainted fruit. The Swedes give out the real Nobels -- in chemistry, in physics. The Peace Prize is given out by the Norwegians, and they are famous for doing a botch job. Three names: Henry Kissinger, Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter.

Which leads to the obvious question: "Where has Obama brought peace in nine months in office?" The award cites "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." That speech in Cairo? A masterful job, but worth the Nobel Peace Prize?

If he's indeed going to eventually accomplish something in the area of peace -- and I hope he might -- then they should have saved it. What happens if he actually brokers peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians? Will they give him the Mega Nobel Peace Prize? Nobody wants an honor they didn't deserve, and I would think that being elected president of the United States is honor aplenty for one year. This is just premature, at best, and weird at worst.