Politico has a fun forum on what Obama should say to accept his undeserved Nobel Peace Prize. Some are contrarian:

How about starting off with a defense of the nation-state, the greatest invention of the modern era…defender of liberty, slayer of tyrants, engine of prosperity…and then pledge to fight for the perseveration of the sovereignty of the state and offer an eloquent explanation of how free, independent democratic nations can overcome all the global challenges that face mankind….just a thought.

Some are silly. Others are semi-serious. But all share a common understanding that this is a cringe-inducing moment that requires Obama to avoid pretending that the award is deserved.

Tevi Troy puckishly wonders if the president shouldn’t ask why the Nobelists couldn’t have “waited a year before bestowing it upon me.” Well, by then the multilateralist, we-are-the-world, America-wins-by-accepting-decline hooey would have been recognized by more people as, well, hooey. Obama already is throwing the elite Left under the bus on Afghanistan. And he’ll soon have to junk Iranian engagement now that it has proved disastrous. (When J Street gets on board with sanctions, you know the jig is up, albeit too late to have much impact.) And the Middle East hasn’t had that “new beginning” we were promised; indeed the parties are further apart than ever.

So perhaps he should have been given the prize last year. After all, if it’s all about aspirations, then last year would have worked just as well. And we wouldn’t have gotten the inkling that Obama and the Nobelists’ vision of an international world order of “shared values” and America’s inevitable decline was a fantasy and a recipe for disaster.