This farce will only solidify in the electorate’s mind the truth of what was blindingly obvious before the election and has become Metaphysically Certain since: Obama is an empty suit with no substantive achievements to speak of, who owes whatever standing he has entirely to the ridiculous fantasies that have been projected onto him by his sycophants.
I can't tell if this is the author's bad argument or the if the author just thinks that there are lots and lots of stupid people in the electorate who would reason from the fact that someone has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize they don't deserve to the conclusion that someone is an empty suit. I could see it if it was true that anyone is an empty suit if they don't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, but then we're all empty suits. (Well, all of us but Henry Kissinger.) Is the idea that it follows from the fact that you got an award you don't deserve that you have no substantive achievements? Clearly not.