Thoughts on Obama's Nobel Prize

A few days have passed, and we've all had time to think over the meanings and implications of Barack Obama's new Nobel Peace Prize. Most people are still puzzled. Why him? Why now? Most--but certainly not all--pundits think that the award came much too early. A few think he should turn it down. Others say that, no, he really did deserve it.

My reaction? I thought of Notre Dame football. No, wait, I can explain! Think back a few years, to when Ty Willingham was head coach of the Fighting Irish. Notre Dame's storied program looked on the verge of collapse. Willingham's biggest crime was that he couldn't beat arch-rival USC. Each and every time the two teams played, Notre Dame took an unholy beating. After three years of this, the school kicked out Willingham and brought in Charlie Weis.

Weis also lost to USC. But--here's the thing--he almost won. That's what made the difference: it looked like Notre Dame was at least trying to win. That was enough to land Weis a multi-million dollar contract for a gazillion years.

So it goes with politics. Bush is Willingham and Obama is Weis. Obama hasn't actually done anything, but he seems to be trying. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for efforts rather than achievements. Is that a good or a bad thing? You decide. But be warned--the Weis experiment hasn't worked out so well for the Irish.

OK, one last thing. For an interestingly contrarian take on the Nobel, read David von Drehle's piece in Time. I don't know if I agree, but it's a very thought-provoking argument.

WILL SCHULTZ