Clearly, both sides make legitimate and, in some cases, thoughtful arguments. Unfortunately, many of the salient points get lost in today's environment of going for the jugular on boisterous talk radio, the speedy Internet, and around-the-clock cable TV.

Some of the vitriol is motivated by a deep dislike of Obama, regardless of what he does. And in this instance, he did not award the Nobel Prize to himself. Still, his political opponents attack him at every opportunity, whether warranted or not.

That includes attacking him for his failed campaign to help Chicago, his adopted hometown, host the 2016 Olympics.

John McCormack, an editorial assistant at the conservative Weekly Standard, said in an Internet post that when it was announced that Chicago had failed in its bid, "Cheers erupt at Weekly Standard world headquarters."

Why would a bunch of conservatives who claim to be patriotic applaud the United States' not getting the Olympics?

William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and former chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle, was critical of Obama when he did win something - the Nobel Peace Prize. Kristol said on CNN that the judges represented "an anti-American committee." Bestowing a prestigious honor on a president elected by a majority of Americans is hardly anti-American.

Few groups are more anti-American than the Taliban, which is waging a bloody battle with U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

In an interview with the Associated Press, Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef asked: "Why are they giving this prize to Obama, who has sent more troops to Afghanistan, who is bombing and killing innocent people?

Kristol, Rush Limbaugh, and other hard-line conservatives find themselves aligned with the Taliban in opposing the award to Obama. I've always heard that politics makes strange bedfellows, but this is one for the record books.

Clearly, politics was on the mind of Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele when he received the news. Steele quickly sent out a plea for donations.

"Democrats and their leftist allies want America made subservient to the agenda of global redistribution and control," Steele said in an e-mail. "And truly patriotic Americans like you and our Republican Party are the only thing standing in their way."

The bombastic Limbaugh told Newsweek: "The Nobel gang has just suicide bombed themselves." Another fierce Obama critic, Glenn Beck, urged Obama to turn down the prize and award it to Tea Party protesters who oppose his policies.

There were some reasoned voices amid all the clutter. Henry A. Kissinger, secretary of state under Richard M. Nixon and a 1973 Nobel Prize winner, congratulated Obama and said the award "honors America and the cause of peace."

Some Obama supporters also crossed the line of fair play.

The Rev. Sherman Miller, president of the Victorville chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in California, said Obama's opponents were motivated by racism. Noting that two previous sitting presidents also had won the Nobel Peace Prize, Miller told the San Bernardino County Sun: "As soon as a black president receives it, it's a big issue."

It is unfair - and inaccurate - to dismiss all Obama critics as racists. After all, Obama had been president less than two weeks on Feb. 1, the deadline for nominations. According to the will left by Alfred Nobel establishing the awards, the prizes were to be awarded for work done "during the preceding year." Furthermore, it is unsettling that a president is accorded a peace prize while conducting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

By his own admission, Obama said he did not deserve to be in the same company as Nobel laureates Nelson Mandela, Elie Wiesel, and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

"I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformational figures that have been honored by this prize," the president said. "I will accept this award as a call to action for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century."

Not all opinions fall neatly into either pro- or anti-Obama categories.

Writing for the Washington Post, David Ignatius said: "Obama's achievements are in the 'good intentions' category, but that doesn't mean they are insignificant. America was too unpopular under Bush. The Nobel committee is expressing a sign of relief that America has rejoined the global consensus. They're right. It's a good thing. It's just a little weird that they gave him a prize for it."