.jpg)
Unlike a lot of conservatives, I've always had a soft spot for the Olympics. I remember loving sports as an athletic kid in sunny California. In 1984, my parents took us to the Summer Olympics in Los Angeles where I got to see Carl Lewis in person at the LA Coliseum win the gold in long jump and race preliminary heats in the 100 meters. I also collected stamps as a kid and recall always liking the designs of the Olympic commemoratives.
So when I heard President Barack Obama would be traveling to Copenhagen to personally plug Chicago's bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics, I thought it was a good move. I figured with Chicago being his hometown, and the IOC being as political a body as exists, Obama would have it in the bag. Chicago was the favorite going into the vote as well. Honestly, I didn't think he'd be going if he hadn't learned Chicago's selection was a foregone conclusion.
Whoops.
After speeches from Obama and First Lady Michelle--oh, Oprah was there too--Chicago not only lost out to Rio de Janeiro, it finished fourth of four finalists, out on the first ballot, behind Tokyo and Madrid too. If it had been a medal round, Chicago would not have made the podium. No doubt Oprah was crying in her Cristall on the Air Force One flight home.
Now, I wasn't disappointed that the IOC picked Rio over Chicago. I love Chicago but it's only been 13 years since the 1996 Atlanta games, which occurred just 12 years after the Los Angeles games. I can't blame the IOC for wanting to "spread the wealth around", something Obama certainly understands.
But what I can't understand is why Obama wasted valuable political capital on this. All the rhetoric about the necessity of slamming through health care as quickly as possible sure rings hollow now. It's true he was only gone for a day or so but the impression left is that the critical stuff isn't that critical.
Maybe he thought he would continue to wow the international community with his oratory. After all, he had been warmly received during the campaign and in his first trips overseas as president.
Perhaps a Chicago Olympics would have resulted in gigantic benefits for his political cronies back home. That's not far-fetched given the nature of Chicago politics.
Whether or not you believe the conspiracy theories, Obama moved straight to the front and laid his credibility on the line. And, in real time, the IOC spiked him as painfully as a Tachikara six-pack. This was a battle that Obama had nothing to do with and no important reason to wade into. But he made a politically calculated decision to inject himself into this battle and got personally slammed. Did Obama really think the IOC would be moved by his claim that he would be able to walk to events from his Chicago home?
Some commentators believe this will blow over as the nation moves on to dealing with its various problems--health care, the economy, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, cap-and-trade, etc. The controversy itself might fade quickly but the political fallout likely will not. When you champion a cause so publicly and personally, and fail in such grand fashion, you give your opponents a big club to metaphorically use on your career. "Mission Accomplished" anyone?
The 2016 Olympics will be historic--the first ever in South America--and fascinating given the cultural melange that is Rio. Ultimately, Brazil's success will probably lead to huge deficits and cost overruns like most Olympiads. Chicago's failure means it'll have to solve its extensive problems without an international sporting event to drive the engine of change.
Laughably, some have suggested Chicago's failure is the fault of George W. Bush polarizing the world against America, or conservative talk radio wishing Obama to fail. Does that mean Bush gets credit for Chicago becoming a finalist in June 2008? Or for New York becoming (in 2005) a finalist for the 2012 Summer Olympics?
No, there were lots of reasons Rio won the sweespstakes. Here are just a couple. Obama either got really bad advice from people who should now be sacked, or relied on his own instincts and made serious miscalculations.
Either way, Chicago's failure has become Obama's because of his efforts to personalize the bid and waste his political capital when he didn't have to. He's handed his opponents a political club. He shouldn't be surprised if he gets hit over the head with it.













Comments
Does being in Rio make these Olympics the winter Olympics?
I've wondered that myself, Stephana, with the whole southern hemisphere thing...they called the Sydney games the Summer Olympics too...
"Unlike a lot of conservatives, I've always had a soft spot for the Olympics." Huh?
Luke, over the years I've heard many conservatives gripe about the Olympics being useless, wastes of time and resources run by UN types. Many seem to like the patriotism involved but don't like the games themselves.
I'm sorry, but the overall tone of this article is kind of wimpy. For example - "Perhaps a Chicago Olympics would have resulted in gigantic benefits for his political cronies back home." Ya think?
Just found this article. I'm also one w/a fondness for the Olympics, but I supported Obama's travels to Copenhagen. He was in a no win situation as he would have been blamed for the loss if he hadn't attended. He wasn't the only world leader there: Prime Minister of Japan, Brazillian President, Spanish King... just to name a few. If world leaders from all the countries up for bid were attending in support of their countries, he would have been more conspicuous by his absence. Plus, all of those t-shirts would have gone to waste!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!