Dopiest defense of Obama's Nobel yet

From Ron Grossman at the Chicago Tribune. At first glance I though this was satire. Sadly, it isn't. Per Grossman, Obama earned the award by being elected!

The day the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was announced, I was in Florence, Italy, weary of butchering another people's language and half understanding what Italians were saying. Startled at the sound of English pronounced with an unmistakable New York accent, I looked up to see two black women. I asked if they'd heard the news.

"Yes," said one, who was about 70. "Ever since, they've been asking what's Obama done to earn it."

I asked what they thought. Maybe something in my voice encouraged them to be frank. Or, perhaps it was the magic of a chance encounter that turns Americans abroad from strangers to friends.

"He got elected, didn't he?" replied the other woman, who was in her late 60s.

That settled the issue for me. Barack Obama's election to the White House was, like the astronaut said on reaching the moon: "One small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind."

There is so much stupidity jammed in this column but a couple of points jump out:

1. If our "post-racial" President wins the Nobel because of his race; are we to then conclude that discrimination against someone because of their race is bad, but discriminating for someone on the basis of race is not only acceptable, but also noble?

2. What did Obama actually do to merit the award? Doesn't this award then belong to the American people were enlightened enough to elect Obama? If so, I want my share of the $1 million that comes with the award.

3. Doesn't the author's argument completely refute the premise that Obama was a post-racial candidate?

4. Does the author believe that Hillary deserved the Nobel if she had won; and if not, why not. And by that reasoning, where is Ms. Thatcher's award? (Hint: probably has to do something with a conservative ideology.) Could Sarah Palin win it 2012??

I guess this is what passes for deep thought on the left these days.