Let Us Go to Rio!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[eisely]

If Chicago's case was so poor to begin with, it becomes a personal rebuke when the president steps in at the last minute to close the deal, when apparently there was no deal to be closed.

 

I have to confess to feeling mixed emotions about this. On the one hand, I have to admit that I got a modest amount of pleasure out of seeing Obama rebuked.

 

However, I am far more concerned about the near future when there are far more serious matters before him. So far all the leaders in the world whom he expected to charm into agreement have made it pretty clear that they are going to go ahead and act in what they see as their own personal and national interests regardless of what Obama says. It is not good for our country for our president to be perceived as uncertain, weak, self centered and even stupid. Even the French are suddenly more aggressive on those things that matter.

 

I see this whole Olympics exercise as evidence of incompetence and naivete which is cause for concern for anybody who cares about this country.

[John-in-KC]

I agree, it wasn't a personal rebuke.

 

It was, howver, a case where the US was doomed to lose: Our Puritanical-based social mores don't include bribery and graft, and well they should not. Those mores are rather less stringent in other areas of the world.

 

I'm convinced Brazil won because it had the deepest well to line the IOC pockets.

 

Now, as far as Obama going, there's an old Western adage: Keep your powder dry. What was his logic in going there? Was there logic, or was he playing the "charisma" card?

 

Sigh. A fool's errand, and I'll keep reading to see how the D base reacts.

[BrentAllen]

George Will disliked the Obamas' speeches even more than I did.

 

"In the Niagara of words spoken and written about the Obamas' trip to Copenhagen, too few have been devoted to the words they spoke there. Their separate speeches to the International Olympic Committee were so dreadful, and in such a characteristic way, that they might be symptomatic of something that has serious implications for American governance.

 

Both Obamas gave heartfelt speeches about . . . themselves. Although the working of the committee's mind is murky, it could reasonably have rejected Chicago's bid for the 2016 Games on aesthetic grounds unless narcissism has suddenly become an Olympic sport.

 

In the 41 sentences of her remarks, Michelle Obama used some form of the personal pronouns "I" or "me" 44 times. Her husband was, comparatively, a shrinking violet, using those pronouns only 26 times in 48 sentences. Still, 70 times in 89 sentences conveyed the message that somehow their fascinating selves were what made, or should have made, Chicago's case compelling."

 

Ouch!

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will100609.php3

[Lisabob]

Did anybody else see the interview about this issue on (I think) MSNBC with Dick Ebersol? He basically said that the USOC is a joke, that the White House was being fed bad information by people who didn't understand reality on the ground, and that the smart money had been on Rio for a long time. He felt that people who believed the US had a realistic shot at the 2016 olympics were delusional and out of touch.

 

Do I know whether he's right? Nope. But he made a fairly convincing argument, I thought.

 

Did he blame Obama? Also, nope. He did blame (in part) the fact that the USOC has this inflated sense of self and doesn't understand - or appear to want to understand - the changing global realities.

 

Of course, there's always more to the story, and some have suggested that Ebersol's tirade is more about protecting NBC's interests, than about the USOC's competence (or lack of same).

 

Here's an interesting discussion on an LA Times Blog, about this issue: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/olympics_blog/2009/10/nbcs-ebersol-us-olympic-committee-needs-real-leaders.html

 

Can we move on, now?

[scoutldr]

"delusional and out of touch"

 

Tres apropos.

[CalicoPenn]

Yep, I can see where the USOC might have an inflated sense of worth. When the television rights to the games are one of the most significant sources of funds for the Olympics, and over 50% of the television revenue is generated in the United States, I can understand why the USOC may feel a bit protective and want to make sure they get a proportionate share of that pie. The USOC seems to have enough ammo to make a case that is it wasn't for the revenue generated in the US, the Olympics would be as relevant as the World's Fair.

[Lisabob]

Note that Ebersol wasn't characterising Obama as delusional and out of touch, but rather the USOC. Whether he was right or not about the USOC is clearly a debatable matter.

[eisely]

Lisabob,

 

It is correct that Ebersol said that the US Olympic Committee was delusional and out of touch. However, any president who is willing to lend the prestige of his office and invest political capital in a losing effort for something that ultimately does not matter a great deal to the USA is also delusional and out of touch.

 

Most cities and countries that host the olympics experience a huge financial cost for which the only benefit is a temporary gain in prestige. While that may have been important for the regime governing China, it is much less important for the US.

 

If Obama believed along with the USOC and Chicago promoters that the US was at least going to be a finalist, he was equally delusional and out of touch.

 

If Obama believed otherwise, then he knowingly made himself look foolish in the eyes of the world. But then that probably really doesn't matter very much as we now know. One can get the Nobel Peace Prize awarded by foreigners for accomplishing nothing.