How Obama Can Win Friends and Deflate Foes When He Accepts His Nobel Peace Prize

Neither president traveled to Oslo to accept the prize, instead sending short telegrams that were read by diplomats. Roosevelt later delivered a Nobel lecture in 1910, after he had left office. Wilson never gave one.

In some ways Obama reflects the philosophies of both men. His emphasis on international diplomacy and dialogue mirrors Wilson. Roosevelt's dictum to "speak softly and carry a big stick" also fits to some degree, given the military escalation Obama is pursuing in Afghanistan even as he makes respectful (some say too respectful) overtures to the world. But the other two presidents already had solid records of achievement -- treaties negotiated, doctrines outlined and put into practice -- when they received the prize.

"I speak as a practical man, and whatever I now advocate I actually tried to do when I was for the time being the head of a great nation," Roosevelt said in 1910. Obama can't say the same. The mere announcement of his award, less than nine months after he took office, generated ridicule and skepticism. And of course it was instant and incessant via mass media that critics in the days of Roosevelt and Wilson would have given their eyeteeth to have had at their disposal. This week bloggers, radio talkers and cable hosts on the right and left will no doubt be poised to dissect, and pounce on, whatever the president says and does in Oslo.

It wouldn't be right for Obama to let an ambassador accept the award for him, given modern custom and jet travel. Nor is it realistic to have expected him to insult the Nobel committee by turning down the award. But there are ways he can avoid creating cringe-worthy moments and new fodder for attacks, particularly from the right.

Make very sparing use of the first person pronoun and personal biography. This is particularly key for Obama, who should not pour fuel on the ego-driven, "Man in the Mirror" narrative of "The One." Maybe it was appropriate for him and his wife to talk about their lives and hometown when they were in Copenhagen last fall trying to win the Olympics for Chicago. But columnist George Will wrote, savaging their performance, "Both Obamas gave heartfelt speeches about ... themselves."

Past Nobel lectures by Americans suggest a bare minimum of that sort of thing will suffice. For instance, Jimmy Carter touched very briefly in 2002 on his time as a submarine officer and as commander in chief during the Cold War, and on the lessons of "a beloved teacher" from his hometown of Plains. Al Gore, accepting the 2007 prize for his work alerting the world to the dangers of climate change, cited his agonizing loss of the presidency in 2000. Seven years ago, he said, "I read my own political obituary in a judgment that seemed to me harsh and mistaken – if not premature. But that unwelcome verdict also brought a precious if painful gift: an opportunity to search for fresh new ways to serve my purpose." And that was it for biography.

Skip paeans to American diversity and tolerance, and the criticism they imply of other nations. Just the fact that Obama is standing there as president of the United States is a message more dramatic than any words, even his. He should also acknowledge that the award is premature and maybe even make a joke about it. Tell us he'll work for the next three to seven years to earn it.

Don't be a milequetoast. When Obama discusses world problems and the kind of world he'd like to see, I'm hoping for a speech that balances out the Nobel committee's praise "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" and conservative caricatures of him as a self-effacing America-last type. He has said in the past, and should say again, tactfully, in Oslo, that he does believe America is exceptional -- in the size of its economy, its military capacity, the principles on which it was founded, and its role as a world leader. He should also try to convey some muscle, maybe with a more elegant version of his 2002 declaration that "I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

There is precedent for this. Roosevelt made clear that although he was receiving a peace prize, he was no pacifist. "No man is worth calling a man who will not fight rather than submit to infamy or see those that are dear to him suffer wrong," he said. "No nation deserves to exist if it permits itself to lose the stern and virile virtues." Carter, not generally perceived as an upholder of those virtues, nevertheless said America was the world's only superpower and "this dominant status is unlikely to change in our lifetimes."

Look ahead, way ahead. Obama may well be, as my colleague Carl Cannon has written, the fourth Nobel recipient (and third Peace Prize winner) picked as a rebuke to George W. Bush. But this is not the place to emulate Carter, who did not veil his distaste for Bush's dismissive view of the United Nations or the new doctrine Bush advanced in connection with the Iraq war. "For powerful countries to adopt a principle of preventive war may well set an example that can have catastrophic consequences," Carter said. Gore also made what seemed to be an oblique reference to the man who defeated him in 2000. "We have everything we need to get started, save perhaps political will, but political will is a renewable resource," he said, perhaps thinking of the possibilities of a new president to be elected the following year.

Stay grounded. Obama knows how to achieve perfect pitch -- he did it last week on Afghanistan and last year on race, among other instances. Beware the vague, lofty and overly pretty. He probably thought he was just rephrasing his campaign pledges in poetry when he said last year, in claiming the Democratic nomination, that we will look back and realize "this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war, and secured our nation, and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth." But the passages sounded Biblical and apocalyptic, as if he were personally going to deliver us from evil. We don't need a new page for Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign playbook, when she parodied Obama's message as "The sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect."

Say how the prize money will be used, and stick to it. Roosevelt said in his telegram that he had decided to establish "a permanent industrial peace committee," a foundation that would strive for "better and more equitable relations" between "capitalists" and "wage workers." In the end, however, he distributed the money to U.S. and European charities aiding victims of World War I. Obama has already said he will give his money to charity. My choices would be schools for children in Afghanistan and -- honoring the work of his mother and Clinton, his secretary of state -- into micro business loans to help women around the world lift themselves, their families and their communities.

Be humble. Obama struck this note in his initial reaction to the Nobel announcement and he should sustain it. Wilson said in his telegram that he was moved "by a very poignant humility before the vastness of the work still called for by this cause," the cause of world peace. "If there were but one such prize, or if this were to be the last, I could not of course accept it," Wilson wrote, because there was still so much work to be done. He concluded, "Whatever has been accomplished in the past is petty compared to the glory and promise of the future." That may be further than Obama wants to go, but it's an interesting benchmark.

On a related note, no bows. Anywhere. To anyone.