Obama's win doesn't pass common sense test

"Wait a second," I thought, "Obama just won the Nobel Peace Prize? Am I really looking at CNN or is this some sort of hoax CNN site?" I checked my door and once again looked at my phone. My second glance confirmed what I had read had been true.

I've been thinking about the president's win since then and have came up with a conclusion: Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize more prematurely than I would finish if ever given the chance to be with Jennifer Nettles.

Obama's win, and the support and backlash from the public and media that came with it, has nothing to do with politics. Whether or not you think Obama disserves to win this award has nothing to do with your political beliefs. It has everything to do with common sense.

President Obama took office Jan. 20. Nominations for the award had to be postmarked by Feb. 1. Did whoever nominated him (I would love to know who it was and wonder if will be released anytime soon) think he did enough to win the award in his first 13 days in office? Better yet, does the Nobel Peace Prize committee really think the president did enough to justify bestowing such a high honor on him during those 13 days?

The committee defended its choice by saying Obama won because of his vision and his ability to inspire hope. They also praised his vision to remove nuclear weapons from the world and for opening dialogs and negotiations with leaders around the world, going as far as saying he's created a new climate in international politics.

It doesn't matter if the president has or hasn't done these things. The only question is whether or not he did them before Feb. 1, and realistically, there's no way he did.

Regardless of what you think about him as president, give the committee the benefit of the doubt and credit him with doing the things the committee has. Even then, the president shouldn't have won this year. The things he's done since Feb. 1 should be considered for next year's award.

It's no different than an artist who releases a CD after the deadline for that year's Grammys. They could release the greatest album ever recorded, one so great it makes Michael Jackson's Thriller CD sound like a karaokefest. It doesn't matter, that CD would be given consideration the following year, just as President Obama's work this year should have been considered for next year's award.

The president calls the award a "call to action." Perhaps the committee awarded him based on the body of work they feel he's about to achieve. And if so, it's further evidence the choice doesn't pass the common sense test.

When's the last time someone won a major award for something they are maybe about to do? Has a soldier ever won a medal of honor after their first week of basic training on the premise it might inspire him to be great in battle some day? Has a baseball player ever won an MVP award three games into the season based on what voters feel he's about to do the rest of the year? Has a director ever won an Oscar for shooting the first eight minutes of a movie because it looks like it could be the greatest movie ever made?

No, they make everyone prove they disserve the award based on their entire body of work before selecting a winner. Apparently, the peace prize committee doesn't feel the same way. The committee took what has traditionally been a lifetime achievement award and turned it into an award given for potential based on 13 says of work.

The committee traded the integrity of its award, and the Nobel name and legacy, for what might be one of the greatest publicity stunt ever imagined.