Sur-Prize (edited with additions)

I've decided to "bump" this as I come up with updates and additions:

Josh Marshall (editor, Talking Points Memo), on why the President might "deserve" the prize more than some think he does:

Obama has begun, if fitfully and very imperfectly to many of his supporters, to steer the ship of state in a different direction. If that seems like a meager accomplishment to many of the usual Washington types it's a profound reflection of their own enablement of the Bush era and how compromised they are by it, how much they perpetuated the belief that it was 'normal history' rather than dark aberration.

My original entry: To tell you the truth, I'm not sure about this (Obama's Nobel Prize) myself. However, anything that makes Republican leaders look like crybabies stamping their little feet cannot possibly be all bad.

Seriously, this is awesome.

ETA: Michael Moore congratulates President Obama, but adds:

You have to end our involvement in Afghanistan now. If you don't, you'll have no choice but to return the prize to Oslo.

I'm not sure (and I'm willing to admit that), but I think he may have a good point.

ETA 2: Huff asks its readers: What is the Most Outrageous Attack on Obama's Nobel Peace Prize? As you might expect, Rush is in the lead, but Glenn is breathing down his neck (and I use that imagery just because I know it'll make them see red).

Limbaugh told Newsweek that "the Nobel gang just suicide-bombed themselves."

And that's not even his winning entry. Meanwhile, Beck:

"[The] Nobel Peace Prize should be turned down by Barack Obama and given ... to the Tea Party goers and the 9-12 Project"

Comers, both. But I say, don't count out the heretofore unknown Brian Kilmeade, who wondered whether Obama delayed his decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan in order to win the Nobel. That scrappy little Fox "news" reporter is really thinking out of the box...