I started to copy bits of specific Prize-applauding inanities with the intention of responding to each objectionable point.

The sheer volume makes this prohibitive.

Santos L. Halper's "Are you a cartoon character?" deserves special mention because Santos is itself a non-existent cartoon character.

Just to pick a term, I find the recurrent accusation of "myopia" the most mordantly amusing.

Several World Citizens like Santos have stooped to archly inform Glenn and like-minded commenters that we tragically and infuriatingly are ignorant or indifferent to the World Stage; thus, we are deemed "myopically" unable or unwilling to acknowledge the World's significant, even superior, judgement of Obama.

Even ondelette flounced back in to twit us nattering nabobs of negativity for our small-mindedness!

(To digress for an "inside comments" observation: I felt that I must have missed the pro-imperialist-intervention advocacy that inspired hard feelings and precipitated ondelette's Grand Flounce. But today I got a taste of the superciliousness that provoked them.)

Despite their presumption of superior cosmopolitan sensibilities, and their determination to see the Nobel negative backlash as a demonstration of the aphorism that a prophet is destined to be dishonored in his own country, I'm sorry to be the one to let the helium out of your collective balloon by pointing out that what you see as "myopia" is merely your own myopia projected outwards.

If nothing else, you are simply out of your reckoning to presume that critics don't "get" the global significance of the award, or respect the wisdom of "the world's" judgment that Obama is indeed One, if not the One, worthy of adulation and encouragement.

I was aware of the European response to Obama since the early "rock star" phase of his candidacy. I have personal connections with expatriates and non-Amerikans.

Obama's "global" charisma was never based on some collective non-Amerikan insight or wisdom that allowed foreigners to see his superior qualities. It's much more mundane and superficial than that.

"The World" was as heartily sick of Dubya as Amerikans were, not least because of Dubya's artificially-enhanced good old boy persona that mixed grand imperialist warmongery and domestic despotism with dyslexic anti-intellectualism-- and an absence of authentic affect, much less generosity of spirit.

Long before Dubya gave Angela Merkel a public neck rub, he'd done much to be reviled as a quintessentially Ugly Amerikan boor.

Then Obama rose like the sun over the horizon. What a contrast! Here was a handsome and articulate Person of Color ("African-American" begs the question; "black" is a stretch) apparently brimming with youthful vigor and possessing both a keen intellect and a compassionate heart.

The World longs for an Amerikan president who is at least halfway cool, same as I do, and Obama made a great first impression of being Totally Cool!

The average non-Amerikan didn't follow the problematic details of Obama's doublespeak and mendacity during the election, or grasp that he would quickly castle behind his right rook and create a "reformed" maladministration filled with Clintonista neoliberal hawks and Goldman-Sachs banksters.

Naturally non-Amerikans are able to take a rosier view of Obama; Obama is one for whom the cynical claim that "familiarity breeds contempt" holds true; The World, only superficially familiar with Obama, lacks sufficient basis for contempt.

No so, those of us who daily witness the despotic and criminal policies and actions his maladministration perpetuates.

Likewise, the repetitious "clarification" that the Nobel isn't a prize to honor past accomplishment, but is in effect a Vote of Confidence in the recipient's ability to achieve the requisite accomplishment, is not unknown to critics.

If that's the case, the Nobel Committee's choice of Obama is reminiscent of Norman Mailer's ill-advised sponsorship of Jack Abbott. For those who don't recognize the name, Abbott was a convicted murderer with a history of violence and some writing talent. Mailer, like the Nobel Committee with Obama, was impressed with Abbott's potential, and successfully lobbied for Abbott's release from prison. Six weeks after being released, Abbott stabbed a man to death and was convicted for manslaughter.

I'm sure that before Abbott's release, Mailer fulminated against the "myopia" of Philistines unable to grasp the larger picture, the greater good served by freeing Abbott to pursue his potential.

Lest readers apply the same incomprehension to me as they do to Glenn-- I'm not "equating" Obama with Abbott. I'm "equating" the common error of judgment of Mailer and the Nobel Committee. Obviously, Obama never stabbed anybody; he just signs the papers and greenlights the drones.

And, while it's hard to discern the exact point made by so many who are so pissed off at Glenn for not Clapping today, I really got a chuckle out of those who seem to perceive faulting the Nobel Committee as a form of chauvinism. That is, they deplore outrage on the grounds that "it's not 'about' Amerika", it's about The World!

Well, my teeth-gnashing fellow World Citizens, as far as I know, and as incredible as it feels at times, Amerika is still part of the world. I don't find any basis for the odd argument that Amerikans should suspend their own opinion, or suppress it out of deference to "World opinion".

Put another way: if PETA decides to give Obama a Lifetime Achievement Award, and I know perfectly well that he likes to sit on a back porch at Camp David with a .22 and take potshots at critters all afternoon, I'm not about to think, "Hey, don't be 'myopic'! Maybe PETA isn't as dazzled or duplicitous as I think! Maybe they're aware of his foibles, and are using the award as both a pat on the back and a kick in the ass!"

Finally, for now. Speaking of no-win situations, another irony here is that Glenn is all too willing to give Obama credit when credit is due! If anything, he errs on the side of praise.

If Glenn's glass isn't half full, it's not because he isn't holding it up to be filled.