I’m afraid I have to disagree with my friend, Matt, below. There are two ways to look at President Obama’s winning of the Nobel Peace Prize — whether he deserves the award, and whether he is helped by it. On both counts I say he’d be better off politely declining to accept it.

Off the top of my head I can’t think of a person who was especially noteworthy in the peacemaking business for the last 12 months. Obama did set some peacemaking goals this year, such as the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons and a reinvigorated (if ham-fisted) effort to re-start the Arab-Israeli peace process. Not one of his major reconiciliation initiatives has panned out, though — partly because he conducted some of them poorly, but mostly because he simply hasn’t had enough time yet. There is a case to be made for “aspirational” peace prizes that encourage certain policies, but we should be clear that that’s what they are meant to be.

On the question of whether the award helps him, I think it’s a resounding “no.” People in this country have already been wary of Obama’s star power abroad, and I certainly detested foreigners saying that, ‘Yes they did.’ Uh, no — we did. There’s no question that increased respect abroad helps our foreign policy, but Obama risks falling into the trap of Israeli President Shimon Peres — a man loved abroad but not at home. It’s a fine formula for a secretary of state or an ambassador, but not POTUS. Plus, the GOP gets to throw out the Jimmy Carter epithet with ever greater authority.

P.S. Due respect to the Democratic National Committee, but I don’t appreciate being labeled on par with Hamas and the Taliban for questioning the day’s news:

In an e-mail to reporters, DNC press secretary Hari Sevugan suggested that Steele’s statement, which said Obama’s “star power” had overshadowed more deserving recipients, was similar to reactions from Hamas and the Taliban.