Issue date: 10/15/09 Section: Editorial/Opinion

Watching "Late Night" with Jimmy Fallon, I was surprised by the negative comments he made about President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize last week.

"He's not only in two wars, he's trying to start one with the moon," Fallon said, to much laughter and applause from the audience.

I couldn't help but be taken aback at how glaringly right he was. If the fact that Obama does not deserve the prize is evident even to someone with Fallon's wit and intelligence, (c'mon folks, he's not that smart or funny) how was he awarded it in the first place?

According to the press release on the Nobel Foundation Web site, Obama was awarded the prize for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons."

Diplomacy and cooperation? The U.S. is at war! No, Obama didn't start the conflict but at the same time, how can you separate the commander and chief from the rest of the country? No leader of a warring nation deserves the peace prize. Seeing how the U.S. is currently in two major conflicts, Obama should not have been awarded a prize for keeping peace.

Also, according to the will of Alfred Nobel, the founder of the prize, the Nobel Peace Prize should be awarded to the individual who "during the preceding year ... shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Isn't Obama sending more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan? Isn't that just the opposite of what the founder was looking for in a Peace Prize winner?

Also how much fraternity could Obama have fostered in the past year since the deadline for applicants for the prize was on Feb. 2, just two weeks after Obama had been sworn into office? Folks, that means he was nominated based on campaign rhetoric, not on actual actions. He was nominated for his ideas, not actual deeds, and sadly it was enough to give him the win.

Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, has been speaking out in defense of Obama. He told the Associated Press, "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."

OK, so how about reaching out to the president with a phone call or a letter? Giving Obama $1.4 million as a "response" seems like a bribe to me.

By now you're certainly thinking I'm not a fan of our president. That couldn't be further from the truth. I voted for him last year on Election Day and I am a proud Democrat. I'm also quite happy Obama has overturned many of the former president's policies. However, I think Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize is ludicrous.

He just hasn't been in office long enough nor has he done enough to simply promote peace. Winning and accepting this prize when he doesn't deserve it is only going to hurt him politically.

Obama has the potential to be a peace prize winner, he just hasn't seized the opportunity. Giving it to him is like giving a baby a pair of running shoes before they can even stand.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools