As I've said before, I do admire Carter as a profoundly decent man. But Kelly's article would seem to ask a very good question: what has Carter done to deserve the prize?

According to the Nobel Committee, it would seem his vocal opposition to President Bush is sufficient. Hmmm...if I were Carter, I think I'd be a little miffed over that. Talk about a backhanded compliment...

I guess it'll look good on the resume, and will be a nice addition to his encyclopedia entry. Too bad it makes him a political tool...a pawn, if you will...for a Nobel Committee that seems to be feeling rather bitter and impotent.