Fitton Center studio named
Sneak peek at 'Runway' finale
'Suor Angelica' rehearsal
Award-winning columnist Tom Archdeacon — an old-school storyteller in a brand-new venue — writes about sports, the city, southwest Ohio and anything else that catches his fancy… or yours.Home > Blogs > Through the Arch > Archives > 2009 > October > 03 > Entry
Rio deserves Games; Obama doesn’t deserve the rips
If you look at the bigger world picture, Rio de Janeiro is the right choice for the 2016 Olympic Games.
In the past, those five interlocking Olympic rings served more like coils of barbed wire fencing that kept both South America and Africa from hosting the world’s premier sporting event.
Granted most of the nations on those two continents still aren’t capable of hosting the Games, but a place like Brazil — whose rising economy and political clout have made it a world player — certainly is.
Prior to the IOC vote to award the games — to either Rio, Chicago, Madrid or Tokyo — one of the most persuasive arguments came from Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who simply held up a world map peppered with markers designating all the previous Olympic host cities.
The biggest clusters were in Europe and North America.
South America was bare.
This was a chance to truly make the games world wide and open them to an entire — and deserving — continent.
Prior to Friday’s vote, many thought Chicago was the slight front-runner, but instead the “Second City” came in fourth. It was bumped in the first round of voting. Tokyo went in round two and then Rio easily KOd Madrid.
Chicago had several factors going against it.
— There’s still a true dislike of America in many pockets of the world and I think that played into some votes.
— The United States Olympic Committee alienated much of the IOC earlier this year when it announced plans to launch its own cable network even though the IOC hadn’t embraced it. Weeks later — realizing the universal ill will it had created — the USOC shelved the plan, but by then the damage was done
— There are some in the IOC still smarting from the way they were exposed for the kick backs they required from Salt Lake officials to give the 2002 Winter Games to Utah. They were blasted in the U.S. Senate and in the media.
As for those yakking heads ripping President Barack Obama for going to Denmark to lobby for the U.S. and Chicago — his adopted home town — how about torching that talk with the Olympic flame. They batter him no matter what he does.
Although the bid had the odds stacked against it, Obama’s trip was worth the try.
The heads of state of the other three nations in the bidding for the game were there and in the past that sometimes has worked. Britain’s prime minister Tony Blair was in Singapore when London got the nod for the 2012 games.
And in 2007 when the 2014 Winter Olympics were going to be awarded, then Russian president Vladimir Putin was in Paris to provide political muscle that helped get his nation the Games.
Reports from Denmark had some IOC members saying the denial of Chicago was not a rejection of Obama. Richard Pound, one of the IOC heavyweights from Canada, told the New York Times that other cities did all they could to knock Chicago out early.
“I’m sure that a lot of the political maneuvering was based on the fact that Obama was probably hoping to come, and was coming ,so ‘We’ve got to keep Chicago out of play or we’re all dead.
“I think (Obama) made a lot of friends here, gained a lot of respect.”
Permalink | Comments (23) | Post your comment |
Comments
By Jack
October 6, 2009 2:28 PM | Link to this
Not sure who is more misinformed, Kurt or his responder…does anyone know who Michael Steele is?By James
October 5, 2009 12:12 PM | Link to this
Wow…if this is the Fox/AM radio official stance since Obama went to Copenhagen to suppport the US bid, can you imagine the response if Obama had stayed home and not supported our country? It would have been even worse than not wearing a flag pin on his lapel!!!By jaybee
October 5, 2009 9:31 AM | Link to this
Wondering, not for the first time, why Mr.Archdeacon’s columns are not labeled commentary because he weaves and sometimes infuses his political beliefs in them all the time. ‘Right.’ ‘Deserve.’ ‘Not deserve.’ Who appointed liberal activist news writers to set the moral compass?By Ice Bandit
October 4, 2009 1:32 PM | Link to this
One of the big reasons the DDN is sinking like a stone is their role as water carrier, apologist and news suppressor for and of the Obama administration. The only reason many of us read the DDN is for its’ sports coverage. But Hal McCoy has been thrown under the bus, and Arch (one of the great sports scribes ever) keeps confusing himself with Marty Gottleib. Sorry Arch, but Obama’s injury was self-inflicted, and their is smoke, sulphur, shoe leather and toenails from the Great Helmsman shooting himself in the foot……By Jim
October 4, 2009 12:14 PM | Link to this
“They batter him no matter what he does.” You mean sort of like what you and the left did when Bush was in office? Hypocrisy at it’s best.By no minority repub. leaders?
October 4, 2009 10:49 AM | Link to this
You idiot, Ken Blackwell was close to becoming the leader of the Republican party…By kurt
October 4, 2009 10:28 AM | Link to this
it’s good to see bigotry is alive and well.My,how we’ve progressed since 1960—-this IS what the world sees.The dolled-up facades of republicans show it—how many minority leaders in their party ? NADA !!By USA!
October 4, 2009 9:01 AM | Link to this
OK let me try - I remember for the last 8 years Democrats and liberals were demonized as unpatriotic and unAmerican when we dared utter any opinion that didn’t fall in with the right. Now all of you on the right and your talk radio blowhards are CELEBRATING that Chicago and the United States of America lost out on the Olympic - the premier sporting even in the world that would have meant jobs and pride for our country. Please remind me who the unpatriotic ones are?By bucknuts away
October 4, 2009 7:01 AM | Link to this
{OK I’ll try} 10. Chicago is considered a dirty, crime ridden city. The Chicago criminal enterprise could not keep their hands off. The other countries involved are non-partisan & non political. Obama interjected himself in the process. Michelle interjected herself in the process. Oprah interjected herself in the process. Obama spoke badly of American exceptionalism while he was there. Michelle Obama’s sacrifice statement showed she did not want to be there and was an insult to the IOC. Obama & Michelle made the whole trip about them and it showed. Obama and Michelle lack influence at home and the results translated abroad.By tonto kowalski
October 4, 2009 6:38 AM | Link to this
Top 10 Reasons Chicago Didn’t Get the Olympics 10. Dead people can’t vote at IOC meetings 9. Obama distracted by 25 min meeting with Gen. McChrystal 8. Who cares if Obama couldn’t talk the IOC into Chicago? He’ll be able to talk Iran out of nukes. 7. The impediment is Israel still building settlements. 6. No teleprompters at IOC presentations. 5. We’ve been quite clear and said all along that we didn’t want the Olympics. 4. This isn’t about the number of Olympics “lost”, it’s about the number of Olympics “saved” or “created”. 3. Clearly not enough wise Latina judges on the committee 2. Because the IOC is racist. 1. It’s George Bush’s fault.By Rusty
October 4, 2009 6:21 AM | Link to this
This is most telling: translation from the Danish website Berlingske: “The fact that Barack Obama came, could not do it. I think he lacked emotion, it seemed too empty and business-like. When Tony Blair promoted London he was around three days to lobby and talk to people. You can not just come with the train one day and try to affect everything. People have felt that it was a lack of respect for the Olympics and sport in general. I think people felt it was too business-like to get into the way we have now seen it many times, and you would have feelings back.” “One of the voting members said Obama gave the worst boring presentation of all”. There was no indication who it was.By Anthony
October 4, 2009 3:52 AM | Link to this
A valid point comes to mind, did Chicago EVER have a construction effort come under/on budget and/or on schedule? Now taking a cue from the DDN usual liberal stance, the whole world/IOC rejected Obama because they are racists. But rejoice, all is not loss, all is not loss! In honor of Barack/Michelle/Oprah/Mayor Dailey strutting (take no prisoners stance) visit to Copenhagen, the IOC has voted to make the belly flop part of the diving competition. Oh well Cleveland did secure the “Gay Olympics”. Perhaps the Obama visit created a new status slogan, that “jumped the shark” be replaced by “went to Copenhagen”.By William
October 4, 2009 2:44 AM | Link to this
Poor Obana…expending all his shrinking political capital..and to what end? Lost worldwide prestige and and now a discerned weak and wobbly international stance.By William
October 4, 2009 2:38 AM | Link to this
Reports from Denmark were that Obama’s “presentation was impassioned”, yes, as impassioned as reading from his omnipresent teleprompter can be. I read UK’s papers’ reports that OIC officials were put off by Obama’s curt, aloof presence. Stating his swooping into town to give his ‘blessing’ on their vote was upsetting. Obama “made a lot of friends here, gained a lot of respect” appears to completely by out of sync with reports in European papers. They ridiculed his naïve somewhat narcissistic nature. Arch states Obama does not deserve the blame for the lost bid, yet I truly believe if Chicago would have won its bid, the hosannas from the high heavens would still be rising to a louder crescendo as we type. The ‘batter’ Arch speaks of is truly deserved as this president is all style and no substanceBy jimmie
October 4, 2009 1:38 AM | Link to this
Poor pathetic Arch - just can’t keep away from his Obama infatuation. Perhaps the delegates were turned off by Obama - just as many Americans are. FWIW - I agree that Rio was the correct choice.By kakistocracy
October 3, 2009 10:54 PM | Link to this
Obambi has been on a worldwide apology tour lamenting what a horrible country we have always been since his reign began. Why would they want to have the Olympics in such a horrible country?By Tom
October 3, 2009 10:46 PM | Link to this
I don’t know how much Rio deserved the bid but, it makes for a great story. If the fact that their continent hadn’t hosted was the best reason, the USA shouldn’t have had the president stick his neck out. Most likely, the constant bashing about our country played a part in their decision…it’s hard to believe someone could suddenly recommend such a lousy country to host after what BO has told the world during the campaign and since taking office. Still, I was disappointed thinking the deal was done.By S
October 3, 2009 10:14 PM | Link to this
How could he ‘make a lot of friends and gained a lot of respect in a 24-36 hour period. FunnyBy A. Letch
October 3, 2009 7:38 PM | Link to this
Don’t protray the IOC members as fools. They’ve been to Rio and know how the Brazilian hotties party. Chicago was done as soon as a sexier honey with Latin hips became friends with the committee. Tall and than and young and lovely. The girl from …By racer
October 3, 2009 4:48 PM | Link to this
mr. obama has a few more important things to do…this trip-which he did only to give the end of what he believes to be an 8-year term-was a waste of OUR money and his time.He needs to be president, not a “star”.By red
October 3, 2009 3:14 PM | Link to this
Typical liberal crap from the Arch……By Ethel S.
October 3, 2009 3:00 PM | Link to this
Rio does deserve the Olympic Games for 2016 as the first country hosting them for South America. And for that reason, BO should have stepped aside and let them have their day. Oh no, BO had to make an another celebrity tour because he thinks he can charm everyone. How much gas, security and entertainment did this trip cost the taxpayers? And the video Chicago used to convincd the IOC was pathetic.By Jack
October 3, 2009 2:38 PM | Link to this
I agree with you on both counts, but YOU would have been ripping Bush if the roles were reversed. Stay away from politics since you can not be unbiased.