Quote:
Originally Posted by MidwayManiac
Objectively, I think the Obamas did a poor job selling the IOC on what Chicago could do for them. It also seemed to me that Obama was lecturing the IOC a little bit, and that is one group that does not take kindly to being lectured.
To borrow a phrase from Jim Rome of all people, just look at the scoreboard. Before the Obamas' presentation, conventional wisdom was that Chicago would be 1 or 2. After their pitch Chicaco came in fourth. There are two explanations for this. Either the Obamas actually hurt, or it was a lost cause and there is nothing they could have done. I personally think their speeches were a lost opportunity and were not that effective. If it was a lost cause from the get-go, I wonder why they were over there in the first place, exposing themselves and the country to a humiliation, which is what happened. Either way I think it was a misjudgment by Team Obama.
|
Correlation does not equal causation.
One of the NPR shows did a lot of coverage of the site selection process, and one of the interviewees was talking about how Chicago was a favorite of the newer IOC members, while Rio was a favorite of the older IOC members.
I'm not an Obama fan overall, but I don't think you can blame him for this. I think that a much more likely explanation is that the IOC just wanted to hold the Olympics in a brand new venue. The US has had the Summer games twice in the past 20 years, and 3 times in the past 25. It just wasn't Chicago's time.
Threaded Mode
