When I first heard that the President won the Nobel Peace Prize, I was really shocked. My first question, and that of everyone I spoke to this morning, was, "Why?" I was anxious to hear what the professional pundit’s reactions would be. My prediction would be skepticism from the Right, and unbridled glee from the Left. I was only half-right. Other conservatives responded as I did, with confusion and bewilderment.

The reaction from the Left, though, surprised me. While some are all but dancing in the streets, some Leftists — major ones at that — are also confused. Matt Lauer said, “We’re less than a year into the first term of this president and there are no — I’m not trying to be, you know, rude here — no major foreign policy achievements, to date.” He even asked David Gregory, “So, what you’re saying in some ways and, again, not to be rude here or sarcastic, that in some ways he wins this award for not being George W. Bush?” to which Gregory responded, “I think that that is an inescapable conclusion about all of this.” I never thought I’d agree with a post on the The Daily Beast, but I think Peter Beinart got it right:

When it comes down to it, I really don’t care who wins the award.  It’s been mostly a farce for years now, with terrorists like Yasser Arafat and warm-mongering junk scientists* like Al Gore winning, I don’t think it’s had any real credibility for a long time.  Adam Graham at Race 4 2012 sums it up nicely.  What bothers me is how weird it is putting a man who has only talked about peace next to those who labored in slums or languished in prisons.  It boggles the mind.

*I say junk science because I don’t buy the sky is falling proclamations of Gore and his ilk.  Even if one assumes he’s right, though, how is fighting melting ice caps related to peace?  Because people might someday fight over dry land in some sort real life Water World scenario?  Absurd.