Let me preface this column with a disclaimer: I like Barack Obama. I'm liberal. In fact, I'm super liberal. In fact, I'm a super liberal feminist who was asked during an interview with a liberal non-profit if I didn't think I was maybe too liberal for the position. So, that's me. And in this particularly polarized political atmosphere, when a snap opinion is requested, I tend to err on the side of the Democrats. After all, their policies are generally in line with mine, whereas the only thing I perceive to be further away from me than Republicans' opinions is my law school graduation date.

But, in what seems to be to be a largely symbolic move, indicating the Nobel Committee's faith in Barack Obama's potential and its dislike of Bush-era policies, Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." That's pretty sweet of the Committee, I guess, and places Obama in the company of U.S. presidents Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt.  According to the Associated Press and Marrti Ahtisaari, the2008 Peace Prize winner, the Nobel Peace Prize can be awarded to encourage individuals to see that their efforts create peace, ensure human rights are respected, and promote democracy through - so, the prize can, in a sense, be awarded to recognize someone's possible future achievements.

And of course, people on both sides of the aisle are freaking out in ways that defy rationality: Brad Woodhouse, Democratic National Committee Communications Director, essentially called the Republicans terrorists for criticizing the Nobel Committee's choice. A journalist from RedState.com demonstrated his journalistic ethics and commitment to fairness, neutrality, and, uh, not being racist when he expressed his surprise that "the Nobel Peace Prize [has] an affirmative action quota." And, because no political "controversy" is complete without Rush Limbaugh weighing in, did you know that the "elites of the world" - the Nobel Committee, presumably - "love a weakened, neutered U.S., and this is their way of promoting that concept." Luckily for the Committee, according to the wildly intelligent talk show host, Obama already had "intentions of [emasculating] the United States." 'Cause peace is for girls and sexless creatures - but definitely not men. Or something. Thanks for weighing in rationally and intelligently, Rush!

But in all this, I can't help but wonder (whoa - that's definitely a line out of at least 20 Sex and the City episodes - I am judging myself) if there really weren't other candidates who were more deserving of winning the Peace Price. Some have mentioned Morgan Tsvangirai, Zimbabwe's opposition leader until last year, when he was made prime minister. Reports have indicated that the majority of people in Zimbabwe have experienced improvements in their quality of life since Tsvangirai took his post, despite Robert Mugabe's despotic rule. What about Liu Xiabo, a former university professor jailed for his involvement in the Tiananmen Square protests, who is now one of the most well-known and outspoken critics of China's human rights record? His arrest and continued imprisonment was criticized by a Congressional resolution, along with international human rights activists, including three Nobel Prize winners.

And if the Nobel Committee wanted to select an American who is attempting to change global discourse and action on peace - how about Hillary Clinton? Ever since taking on the position of Secretary of State, Clinton has made improving the lives of women and girls a priority, introducing a United Nations Security Council Resolution strongly mandating the protection of women and girls in conflicts, which was subsequently passed. Under Clinton's watch, the United States is pushing authorities in the DRC to try five military officers accused of being involved, either directly or indirectly, with raping and abusing women in the line of duty. Most recently, after Guinean troops responded to a political protest by indiscriminately raping and murdering women at a stadium in the middle of the day, the State Department leapt into action, demanding, among other things, that Guinea's government return to civilian rule.

By recognizing that investments in gender equality lead to improvements in global development, Clinton is using her position in an attempt to curb gender-based violence across the globe. Maybe she was a candidate on the Nobel Peace Prize list, maybe she wasn't. But she is as worthy of the award, if not more, than Obama. There are countless individuals worldwide engaging in important activism in an attempt to promote peace - I find it hard to believe, despite all that Obama has done, that none of them deserve the award more.

Or maybe Farai Chideya, a political analyst and journalist who worked for NPR, put her finger on what message the prize was intended to send this year: "thank God you're not trying to be a big swinging d*ck of a unilateral superpower!"