Eric Zorn, writing in his blog for the Chicago Tribune, and Bret Stephens, writing in The Wall Street Journal, take very different view of the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to U.S. President Barack Obama.

To conservatives, Zorn says get over it already and worry about something more important: "So a panel of five Norwegians decided Obama's rhetoric on international relations was a prize-worthy contribution to a more peaceful world. Shrug it off if you disagree and hope that somehow they were right. Fight, and fight fair, over important things."

Zorn says the outrage among some on the right at the president's win is symptomatic of Presidential Derangement Syndrome, a malady that he says was first identified as Bush Derangement Syndrome, suffered by some on the left.

Now the right is afflicted by a similar syndrome, something he said David Horowitz first identified in a National Review Online column subtitled "Shut up about the birth certificate."

Stephens, however, says Obama was a perfect pick for the prize, which he says has most often been awarded to those he calls Goodists, "people who believe all conflict stems from avoidable misunderstanding" and not to those who actually accomplished much in the way of keeping the peace.

"Typical of the laments about Mr. Obama's Nobel is that he's done nothing yet to deserve it. But what, really, did most of the other Goodists do before they won their prizes? Mr. Obama, at least, got himself elected president, the first man to do so on explicitly Goodist terms: hope, change, diplomacy, disarmament, internationalism. He is, so to speak, the son Alfred Nobel never had (minus the dynamite fortune), the best and most significant spokesman for everything the Peace Prize has stood for these 108 years."