The political analyst herd seemed to have concluded, within hours of its announcement, that the International Olympic Committee's decision to award the 2016 Summer Games to Rio de Janeiro rather than Chicago, was a setback for Obama both at home and abroad.
I'd say the Olympic sideshow was more of a no-win for Obama. Had he not gone to Copenhagen to make the pitch, he would have been roundly criticized here for not going the extra mile to bring this supposedly prestigious event to the U.S. I'm sure that he knew, too, that if he went and the decision went against Chicago, he'd be criticized for "failure" and even for making the trip in the first place. And of course, the critics would have been largely the same people in either case.
Personally, when I heard the Obamas were planning to go try to sway the vote, I figured it was a lost cause. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, but the strength of Rio de Janeiro's claim as the first nation on the South American continent to get a serious chance to host the games was indisputable; it was unimaginable that the President's appearance could have changed that.
Before the decision, and before Obama's trip, there were predictions that Chicago was slightly in the lead, but (because of Rio's clear claim) that seemed dubious even at the time, and was probably the product of overzealous boosterism either from the Windy City or from the U.S. Olympic Committee. In fact, Chicago's last-place finish also had a dual logic which had nothing to do with Obama. The big problem seems to have been bad blood between the IOC and the USOC. I hazard the guess that a second problem, if one were needed, was the nature of Chicago's candidacy: as I heard it, they had put forward a plan aimed at keeping costs low, including fewer permanent structures and less pomp. I think that makes a lot of sense, but I doubt the self-impressed and regal IOC saw it that way.
Perhaps hosting the Olympics isn't worth the effort anyway? It seldom makes a profit, and the glamor and legitimacy of the event are growing a little dull. My reforms would consist mainly of getting back to basics: Get rid of most of the team sports that have crept in over the years, especially those that are played in only a few countries around the world; and dump events that depend upon judges' scores. And here in the U.S., give us thorough coverage, please, rather than just the events that our own teams may win.
Comments