Greetings from Chicago as I sit in the lounge waiting to return to Shopping Mall USA.
I’ve been watching the rantfest over at Phibian’s place with some interest. Because I was wondering how long it would take for someone to lay the blame for Chicago not being selected for the Olympics at the feet of Barak Obama because he went to Denmark. A word or two is thrown in about how incompetent all of the White House staffers are and how they should never have let him go-like the package was the White House’s to control.
First, I would like to point out to much of Phib’s commenters is that the leaders of every nation attended. Did they all lose prestige, too? Is the “diminishment” of Spain’s head of state also good news for Republicans?
Second, if Chicago had won the bid, what prestige would the Presidency gain? Would it persuade even one douche tea-bagger, to change his opinion of the President? Frankly -it seems to me that there was no harm to the President whatsover in going.
Finally-most people also do not seem to notice that he also went to talk to Gen McChrystal, who came to lobby for drawing us even deeper into a war for a population that cannot or will not help itself.
It comes down to this: George Bush did not do this for New York-so it must be part of some Obama conspiracy.
The truth is a little different:
The news of the day appears to have been dominated by Chicago and the Obamas, but there are three other excellent bids to consider. And apologies if you want me to reveal who is going to win – the honest answer is that I, along with everyone, remain very much in the dark."
Not everything is about us. An vote against Chicago for a city outside the US isn’t necessarily an anti-American vote. Maybe some where that way, but these votes are done in blocks-so for some reason, folks pulled Madrid throught the first two rounds. The Rio backers had always said they thought Madrid was their strongest competion and it looks like they were right.
Chicago had-in many ways-lot stacked against it. Lets start with the fact that the 2012 games are in London. Putting the 2016 games in the USA is virtually a repeat of putting them in Europe-and let’s face it Brazil has been aced out twice before-so the sympathy card of no games in South America must have been strong. Furthermore-when you actually look at the play by play of the event-US border security was very much on the mind of the IOC-to Chicago’s detriement. That’s not saying the US is doing anything wrong-but the IOC is a multi-national body, and many of its members are not on the Visa waiver program. (See the Times of London’s live coverage here). Furthermore-as the Chicago paper points out-the USOC is not well beloved within the IOC . So the vote was probably more anti-USOC than anti-American per se.
The International Olympic Committee fancies itself a force in global affairs. As in the case of breaking Olympic ground by giving the 2008 Olympics to China, the world’s most populous country, Friday’s vote was a chance for the IOC to say that by giving the first Olympics to South America it will have aided the development of Brazil, the most populous country on the continent.
That Chicago was eliminated in the first round, as shocking as it seemed, also was surprisingly understandable, given the IOC’s Byzantine internal politics, its fractious relationship with the country whose companies have been its cash cow and the way the host-city election system is structured.
Since the IOC narrowed the 2016 field from seven to four finalists 16 months ago, it has been apparent that Chicago’s biggest challenge would be surviving the first round in what was expected to be a very close election.
Chicago was the only candidate without a significant regional constituency. And it was working to overcome years of IOC members’ ill feeling toward the U.S. Olympic Committee, which intensified in the past year.
NBC Sports chairman Dick Ebersol, whose company paid $5.7 billion for Olympic TV rights from 2000 through 2012, placed the blame squarely on the USOC.
"This was the IOC membership saying to the USOC there will be no more domestic Olympics until you join the Olympic movement," Ebersol told me early Saturday morning, after he had talked with many leading members. "Chicago never had a chance, it turns out."
Chicago failed — miserably, it would seem at a cursory glance — for some of the same reasons New York lost in the second of five rounds of voting for the 2012 Summer Games. It also failed out of a naivete that having what may have been the best bid was good enough.
"We (North Americans) kind of think if you’ve got the best bid, the world will recognize that, and these decisions are made solely on the merits of the bid. Well, not solely," said veteran IOC member Richard Pound of Canada.
That’s not all for the President to control-the US government does not directly control or finance national sporting bodies. Simply, Chicago played and got to the finals. Sometimes good teams just get beat. Which is what I believe happened here.
McChrystal got 25 minutes. But, as you may have noticed; I actually defended the CINC in my post … at least against his staff.
I agreed with Phib in that I thought it was his staff that set up the won for an enormous blow to his presidential prestige. It was actually an excellent idea to send the wife of the won to represent both the US and Chicago at the event since she has spent many years living in Chicago and I thought this would contribute to the perception that this president was going to be ultra-sensitive about only punching in his own weight class on the international stage.
It certainly didn’t help matters that the international press and IOC press reps were going out of their way to dredge up the dirt on potential host cities and the violence in Chicago made the headlines that week.
Still, think what the people of Chicago have been spared in terms of graft and corruption on an even more obscene scale.
Sad to see Chicago miss, but glad that some other place got the Olympics. Mark my words, the London games will be a “bust” in regards to TV ratings and general interest. That will make the IOC put out a full court press to build up 2016 in Rio. If the London games really sour, I imagine that the next games will be either in Cairo or Johannesburg. That way the Olympics will have been on 6 out of 7 continents.
In regards to Obama. I think the main issue is his staff. I don’t see a problem with him going, but I think he should have made the approach as brining the games to America, not just his “adopted hometown.” Also, making as your main talking point that it would be a cap to your legacy as President in your second term saying let the games begin is being a bit too prideful if you ask me.
What people in the press seem to forget, that no matter who is in the White House, the world still hates the “Ugly American.” When “W” was there, I think he got that concept, and he really didn’t care what the world media and press thought about him. But he did pour more money into AIDS help and malaria help in Africa than any President so far. Obama and his staff don’t get that no matter how hard you try to play down the last Administration, and make the case that now people want to come to America to visit (even though there were a hell of a lot that came to stay illegally under the hated “W”) they still will see us just about as most Americans view the French, or the Japanaese view anyone.
The other world leaders that were there, probably did hang around to see how the voting went, not just fly in and then take off as if you were just making a cameo to close the deal. I think that is what probably set many off on Chicago.
Its great to be “loved” and certainly Obama is, but I’d rather see a more robust engagement of NATO in Afghanistan and Russia/China cooperation in regards to Iran and North Korea.
But in the end, as always, nations/regimes will do what they believe is best for THEM.
One thing I want to add. When “W” was in office, and the war in Iraq was going on (which I was not a big fan of) all you could hear from the Left was that they were “patriotic” Americans but believed that we should not be there and it was all “W’s” fault.
Now I know war and the Olympics are completely different, but I think that in regards to saying that if one person is against the President, then they are against America holds the same for both cases. I did no want the US to get the Olympics (not really fond of Chicago), but don’t want to be happy just because the President failed. I think it was a bad move just like the previous one’s errors in Iraq. Criticism should be able to come from both sides. I didn’t really think that the anti-war dems were anti-american (though they looked like it sometimes) anymore than I think that the anti-USA Olympics are out to trash America (they just don’t like the President in both cases).