Obamas' get last place for Chicago

Way to count the votes:

COPENHAGEN -- The International Olympic Committee delivered a stunning blow to Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympics, knocking it out of the voting in the first round Friday, leaving Rio de Janeiro and Madrid waiting for the announcement which city will host the Games.
Rio de Janeiro beat Madrid in the final round of voting, 66-32.

Chicago got 18 of 94 votes cast in the first round, after Madrid’s 28, Rio’s 26 and Tokyo’s 22. Rio jumped to 46 votes in the second round, to Madrid’s 29 and Tokyo’s 20.

Tags: Chicago 2016 (all tags)

Comments

100 Comments

Misplaced Apostophe

Obamas = Plural

Obama's = Possessive

Obamas' = Plural Possessive

That is all.

by Swan 2009-10-02 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Misplaced Apostophe

Yea, have at it.

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-10-02 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Misplaced Apostophe

I hope that I will not get banned again for being frank, but, considering what else is going on with the administration this hardly seems worth the effort.  Why is someone with your weight not discussing health care or going more into depth like began to discuss the other day- the issue of campaign finance reform?

by bruh3 2009-10-03 04:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Misplaced Apostophe

...someone with your weight...

Are you saying Jerome is fat?  How many time have you been banned anyway, for you know, being 'frank'?

by fogiv 2009-10-03 09:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Misplaced Apostophe

Once because I was defending President Obama during the Rev. Wright incident.

by bruh3 2009-10-03 09:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Misplaced Apostophe

well, that's weird.

by fogiv 2009-10-04 06:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Misplaced Apostophe

Not really. I mocked him for arguing that his travels abroad somehow made him immune to racial issues in America as a response to my question over whether what Wright said was substantively so horrible compared to what else we have heard in the media.  I just thought his comment was total non sequitur.

But, it is his site to do what he wants. No one says he has to have a sense of humor.

And as for the joke that I told, and, at the risk of being banned again, more specifically, I linked his comment to a post on the satire site- Stuff White People LIke- by jokingly referring to similar observations that that site made about race issues and traveling abroad.

I am not sure he realized the site was satire since I never got the chance to ask. Some do not get that it is satire that's been featured on NPR and other MSM.  Still, I stand by my comment as funny.

by bruh3 2009-10-04 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Misplaced Apostophe

Well both Michelle and Barack went so Obamas' is correct.

I had no problem with Michelle attending the IOC vote. I thought it a misplaced priority for the President. I'm surprised Chicago was ousted first.

by Charles Lemos 2009-10-02 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Misplaced Apostophe

In fact it seems the punctuation was among the high points of the diary, on reflection.

by Shaun Appleby 2009-10-02 06:42PM | 0 recs
Why am I not surprised you're enjoying this?

by DTOzone 2009-10-02 12:24PM | 0 recs
My sentiment exactly, DTOzone. Jerome...

...just hates Obama.  Why is unanswered, he's shown no political views that explain it, and he was never a Hillary sycophant even while supporting her.

I suspect it's personal ego, his first and second choices didn't become President, and he's STILL chagrined to have been proven so dramatically wrong in his (and so many Hillary supporters' belief) that "Obama can't win!"  Even the very day before the election Jerome could barely hide his giddiness on the front page here over a Republican pollster's projection that Obama's lead was just 2 points, contradicting ALL other polling out there.

Jerome really can't just be a team player and be happy that a Democrat is in the White House, and a reasonably liberal one as well as the first black one at that.

by DCCyclone 2009-10-02 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: My sentiment exactly, DTOzone. Jerome...

"Obama can't win"?  that's made up bs. You can go back and look through all the posts on that one. I always thought he would win, just didn't like that he would because I knew he'd be a dissapointment.

The number of contests I thought Obama would lose number very few. The number of times I've called when Obama would flip-flop from his rhetoric are far more in number. I just never believed the hype.

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-10-02 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: My sentiment exactly, DTOzone. Jerome...

I never bought the hype either and was a very strong Hillary supporter throughout the primaries. However, I am also a very strong Democrat and Obama is my President. I will support him.

I am much more appalled at the House and Senate Democrats who are pulling the same spineless song and dance we all know and hate. Oh and bullshit bloggers who will whine and bitch without doing anything useful, except try to pull down the best chance we have had for our country in my lifetime.

At least repugnants know how to support their president.

What does it say for our party when a lone Representative (Grayson) finally has the balls to call out the pugs on the floor of the House?

Either get on board or do something else. You are getting in our way.

by Hollede 2009-10-02 09:52PM | 0 recs
Re: My sentiment exactly, DTOzone. Jerome...

The Republicans support their President because their President supports them. Being partisan for the purpose of supporting this or that politician is a good thing only to the extent that substantively we are moving away from becoming a plutocracy. Anyone looking at campaign finance, the health care debate or propping up the too big to fail banks should be concerned rather than cheering the team on. It is also funny how we are suppose to be partisan for a President who argues for post partisanship. Which is it?

by bruh3 2009-10-03 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: My sentiment exactly, DTOzone. Jerome...

Dude, I remembered your posts from the Primary and thinking what an angry ass you were.

Now I actually enjoy your posts and find your arguments very sound.  Very meat and potato.  

I really don't understand why posters here become attack dogs when anyone says anything negative about Obama.  He's a President, not God.  Can't you love the guy and still see his shortcomings?

It's all very Bush Co. to me.  We've become what we despised.

by FilbertSF 2009-10-03 08:20PM | 0 recs
Re: My sentiment exactly, DTOzone. Jerome...

 I am not sure why some comment posters are so vested in President Obama or any other politician in DC. Many claim to be well versed in politics, and, so, their fanboy attitude is odd.

You will notice I do not shill for any of politician or claim any walk on water.

 I saw what happened with Bush supporters, including some of my friends who were nuts. This was me with President Clinton in the 90s: following him like a trusting fan-girl. I supported NAFTA because he said it was okay. I could quote from the neoliberal/centrist book of how things "must" be.  But , now I think policies matter. Not the politicians. They only matter  because they affect policy. This often brings me into battle with people here, but it is not about anything more than how their support of a particular candidate gets in the way of what I think should first be policy questions- not loyalty oaths about are you a true Obama supporter. WHo gives a crap about that if one is trying to enact the best policies?

by bruh3 2009-10-03 09:20PM | 0 recs
I have always been a partisan Democrat.

And I do not see that changing anytime soon. As far as I am concerned the repugs are irrelevant roadblocks (the kindest thing I can say about them, IMHO).

I have watched President Obama work harder for post partisanship than any other Democratic President in my lifetime. He certainly has tried harder than any repug I have ever seen. Whilst I feel this will have zero impact on the repugs, I do hope the American people will notice his efforts.

Oh and bruh3, lighten up. You are one of the more humorless, narcissistic, egomaniacs I have encountered in some time.

by Hollede 2009-10-05 11:31AM | 0 recs
Not everyone believed "the hype"

but he won and he deserves the support and well-wishing of members of his party.

And if you can't deal with that, you're free to leave the party.

by DTOzone 2009-10-02 11:38PM | 0 recs
Re: My sentiment exactly, DTOzone. Jerome...

Interesting coming from a support of STAUNCH Progressive Mark Warner...   A man who makes Obama look like a far leftist.  

by 30000Fine 2009-10-03 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: My sentiment exactly, DTOzone. Jerome...

Also, its amazing how bipolar some people are... it must be because Edwards or Clinton didn't win.... Really, those were lousy alternatives. I really wish Dean would have run again, as anyone would have won.

I couldn't care less about the fact that he's half African heritage. gmafb.  Liberal? show me that in voting.

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-10-02 06:51PM | 0 recs
Re: My sentiment exactly, DTOzone. Jerome...

Where is this ire directed at the biggest culprit - the Democratic controlled senate?  All these years, I have seen Democratic party members blame Bush for the country's problems while I haven't seen them really offering any concrete alternatives. While OBama has to take a lot of the blame(and I was one of his fiercest critics for the whole Bushian bank bailout), I really don't see the Democratic Senate holding a think tank and getting together to come up with  concrete plans to take advantage of a Democratic white house. When Obama was doing his bailout of the banks, most of the Dem senators didn't offer any resistance. But when it comes ot healthcare bailout, they find their independent minds all of a sudden?  The thing is the senate had EIGHT years to think of some good plans. Whenever there is a new issue, you see DEmocratic senators come up with different answers when they should hash out any differences and debate what is the POV the party needs to go with in Obama's first term. I see very few powerr structures in the Congress coming up with a coherent education plan that works, not enough of the Dem senate is putting any kind of pressure on Obama to scale back on military spending.

Unfortunately Obama is a little soft as a leader and he doesn't have the guts to put the senators in their place and shame them into giving him at least a short term chance.

The party structure has been corrupt for many years.  I have been angry for years now because I feel all Bush did was make a do nothing Democratic Party seem good by comparison. All a weak crazy republican party does is put no pressure on our party to improve itself.  

by Pravin 2009-10-03 01:34AM | 0 recs
Re: My sentiment exactly, DTOzone. Jerome...

How is the Senate able to do what it does without President Obama allowing it? Let me give two practical examples. President Obama should know the ways money is skewing the debate in DC over healthcare whether it is Baucus in the Senate or the Blue Dogs in the House. The later of whom are aided by President Obama's CoS, Rahm. So, why is he not pushing hard on these issues of conflicts of interest regarding health care reform?

The second example is again I return to what Senator Harkin says on the President's ability to influence the Senate. Harkin says that Obama could whip up the votes for the public option if he so wanted to do so. So, what's stopping him considering he says it is something he wants, and we know the Senate is dysfunctional.

In closing, why is the argument always either/or? Either one has a problem with President Obama's leadership or the Senate. What about both?

by bruh3 2009-10-03 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: My sentiment exactly, DTOzone. Jerome...

Oh trust me. I blame both. I just find Jerome hasn't been bitter more often in the past. I think this anger people have at Obama needs to be directed at both the Senate and the White House.

Rahm Emanuel seems to be more effective in marginalizign the good Demcorats like Dean rather than the Democrats who deserve it.

I blame Obama for not including more DEmocrats who have had a better track record in the last eight years in terms of being right on the issues.

I have given up hope on obama and the senate democrats in terms of reducing the Military INdustrial Complex which is sucking up money that could be used on social reconstruction projects.

by Pravin 2009-10-04 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: My sentiment exactly, DTOzone. Jerome...

Hello Kettle... This is the Pot... Your Black!

Dude, No one cares if you dislike Obama, think he's over hyped (ironic coming from a supporter of the insanely overhyped Mark Warner, the most disappointing of the Freshmen Senators), etc.  Its the way you express yourself.  You're like the guy trying to pick a fight in a bar.   Posts like this one were to rile people up.  

by 30000Fine 2009-10-03 09:23AM | 0 recs
The three branches of government

Obama doesn't vote for anything. He signs things other people (congresspeople) vote for.

I know George W. Bush took the balance of power away, but sheesh, bash the guy for his lack of liberal voting record as President when he won't have any.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-03 03:42PM | 0 recs
Why do I get the feeling

we just waltzed into a trap set by a bitter bored washed up blogger who decided tonight would be a good night to sooth his bitterness with a good old primary fight.

by DTOzone 2009-10-02 07:47PM | 0 recs
Great news for Chicago

Why does the American city always have to pay all the bills itself, but Madrid, Tokyo, and Rio are all national bids? Chicago can't afford the Olympics, and, yes, "it'll pay for itself" was always obviously b.s., especially for a Mayor who prides himself on insider deals and cost overruns for every big project he does.

Next time, "The United States" should in effect make a bid, not one of its budget-deficit cities.

by fairleft2 2009-10-02 12:39PM | 0 recs
That doesn't preclude bid backed by federal $$$

Your "huh" is self-inflicted.

It's stupid for individual cities, with their relatively tiny budgets, pretending they can handle the expense of an Olympics. Daley tried to fake it, but money-wise it is crazy for a city running budget deficits to think it could pay for an Olympics by itself. That's the main reason the New York (for 2012) and Chicago bids (45% were against it) were not (very) popular with the local populace, which was a major factor in their failures. The Olympic committee wants to send the games to places where there is widespread enthusiasm for them.

by fairleft2 2009-10-02 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: The New York bid

There you go making sense again.  Don't forget where you are.  Here, you see, the failure belongs solely to the Obamaz.  They's jus' terrible at everything!

by fogiv 2009-10-02 01:58PM | 0 recs
Hillary Clinton

would have won us every Olympics for the next 10,000 years!!!!!

by DTOzone 2009-10-02 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Clinton

...personally, all by herself.  She'd have won every event.  Heh.

by fogiv 2009-10-02 02:21PM | 0 recs
New Yorkers rejected the Olympic stadium, so

that indicates the govt was trying to make them but the local people didn't want to pay for a major chunk of the NY Olympics bill.

Both Tokyo and Chicago, last and second to last in the current bidding, had about 55% of their local residents backing the bid. Very weak on the enthusiasm front. I know in Chicago the reason for lack of enthusiasm was that many of us didn't trust the financing and believed we'd get stuck with a huge bill. The lack of enthusiasm in NY, Chicago, and Tokyo played a major role in their poor showings, in my humble opinion (suggest you add IMHO to your opinion unless and until you have a direct line to the voters).

by fairleft2 2009-10-02 02:36PM | 0 recs
Re: New Yorkers rejected the Olympic stadium, so

IMHO There you go making sense again IMHO.  Don't forget where you are IMHO.  Here IMHO, you see, the failure belongs solely to the Obamaz IMHO.  They's jus' terrible IMHO at everything IMHO!

Since none of what you're saying has much of anything to do with the IOC's decision, or the premise this diary posits, I've got an acronym for you too:  STFU

by fogiv 2009-10-02 03:05PM | 0 recs
Touchy aren't you

My comments are directly about the diary topic, which, giving it the best possible spin, is about thinking about who or what is to blame for Chicago finishing last in Olympic bidding.

Of course, if the diary topic is "I am an asshole" your comment is right on target and I'm way off base. IMHO.

by fairleft2 2009-10-02 07:48PM | 0 recs
Maybe we should stop blaming people

this is our problem, we spend more time trying to blame someone when things go wrong.

The woman who comes in fourth at the Miss America pagent doesn't go around blaming herself or someone else because she came in fourth out of fifty.

Well maybe she does, but that's probably because she's a pretentious bitch who can't accept anything but winning.

Yep, that's the American way, it's #1 or nothing.

by DTOzone 2009-10-02 08:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Touchy aren't you

Nah, not touchy at all.  I have a flair for snide humor, and rarely miss an opportunity to excercise same.  Maybe had Obama simply shown some photos of dead Chicago youth to the IOC instead of giving a speech, we'd be prepping for the games.  I hear that's an effective tactic.

by fogiv 2009-10-02 08:04PM | 0 recs
that might have worked

after all, they did award the Olympics to a city with one of the highest crime rates in the world.

by DTOzone 2009-10-02 08:10PM | 0 recs
No you don't, IMHO.

by fairleft2 2009-10-02 08:56PM | 0 recs
Re: No you don't, IMHO.

Duly noted, and leavened with the fact that most of your HOs are BS.  I'll take your disapproval for what it truly is: a compliment.

by fogiv 2009-10-02 09:41PM | 0 recs
You Said It...

Actually, I think you may be on to something with your second diary topic example.  IMHO.

by Shaun Appleby 2009-10-02 09:42PM | 0 recs
fog, you frakin' troll, you...

how dare you IMHO...i mean, WTF?  why u H8 like u do?

by NavyBlueWife 2009-10-02 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: fog, you frakin' troll, you...

i heart haters (and taters).

by fogiv 2009-10-02 08:21PM | 0 recs
It wasn't Americans, it was Chicagoans

That was the problem, the other 297 million Americans were never gonna pay a dime. Us 3 million Chicagoans, our budget in deficit and laying off employees as we speak, were on the hook for all costs.

Until U.S. Olympic bids get say $10 billion in support from the feds, our bids will always be unenthusiastic. A rational lack of enthusiasm is only natural, and 45% of Chicagoans maintained that despite the millions spent on propagandizing us.

by fairleft2 2009-10-02 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: It wasn't Americans, it was Chicagoans

This is a rather big issue in sports. How many cities and states have went into debt attracting, maintaining and trying to keep sporting franchises. Often to the tune of billions of dollars. No one likes to think about that, but you are right to bring it up. No ask- can we afford it, and mean while these same peo will bitch about deficits and costs of trying to reform health care.

by bruh3 2009-10-03 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Huh?

Brazil is a Federated Republic.

by Charles Lemos 2009-10-02 02:48PM | 0 recs
No

The city of Chicago promised to cover all cost overruns. That the pinpoint reason why people were unenthusiastic about handing the Olympics to the King of Cost Overruns, Mayor Daley. The supposed cost of an Olympics is never the problem, it's always the cost overruns. London projected $4-5 billion a few years ago and now projects $15 billion. $4 billion is what Mayor Daley was projecting as the cost of our bid.

by fairleft2 2009-10-02 08:11PM | 0 recs
Re: No

This is correct.  Its been a major source of contention in the area...   It also took a LONG time fore Daley to agree to cover overruns... in fact the IOC report had that a as a negative connotation.   That may have hurt Chicago in the bid process.

by 30000Fine 2009-10-03 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Obamas' get last place for Chicago

Impressively content free stuff here, Jerome.

I love the smell of PUMA in the afternoon.

by lojasmo 2009-10-02 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Obamas' get last place for Chicago

Is that what that is?  I thought somebody pissed on a heater.

by fogiv 2009-10-02 02:00PM | 0 recs
just remember....

....Jerome was citing Mason-Dixon polls two days before the election.

I do agree that someone on Obama's staff should have done some checking around to see if Chicago really had a chance.

But the way the left is attacking Obama's trip plays right in to the wingnut talking points.

by esconded 2009-10-02 02:43PM | 0 recs
Yeah, seriously, what the hell?
It seems just bizarre that some of the left is cheering this just as hard as the far right, between this and that guy on openleft basically writing, "Because Bush messed everything up, we didn't deserve this at all, neenerneenerneener." Never mind the fact that Illinois didn't vote for him in either of the elections.
Granted, I got Chicago roots, so I was rooting for this and thus have a different perspective (they still owe us for 1904, damnit), but this is still weird beyond weird.
by jaylou 2009-10-02 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: just remember....

Dip, meet shit. I cited every poll before the election. How much was I off in the final prediction of mine... how many decimals?

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-10-02 06:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Obamas' get last place for Chicago

hmmmmm. So is the point of the story that when every votes counts, the real winner wins? Unlike - let's say - the democratic primary where if you live in a back-ass, po-dunk republican state like Utah - and can only vote one day for 3 hrs, your vote counts triple that of a more liberal, democratic state like CA where the voting goes on for a month and includes far more people? Too bad the Obama's didn't have ACORN to fall back on. (snark....yes, couldn't help but go back there for a minute of joyful bliss....)

by nikkid 2009-10-02 01:07PM | 0 recs
Can this site go one day

without reverted back to the primaries?

by DTOzone 2009-10-02 01:11PM | 0 recs
Chicago

 Today I tuned the radio to one of my 5 Right wing radio stations and enjoyed listening to Beck, Limbaugh, and finally Schnitt. They were positively gleeful. Just sayin'.

by QTG 2009-10-02 01:18PM | 0 recs
Is this snark?

Question posed with utmost seriousness.

by JJE 2009-10-02 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Obamas' get last place for Chicago

Heh, Chicago finished in last place of the cities on the shortlist.  Let's try to be at least a little nice today.

by Steve M 2009-10-02 01:35PM | 0 recs
What a waste of time and resources

Why would this President care about the 2016 olympics rather than helping people back at home by passing healthcare reform and trying to get people back to work.  This President is clueless.  

by Kent 2009-10-02 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: What a waste of time and resources

BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PASS HEALTHCARE REFORM IN THIS COUNTRY.  IMPOSSIBLE I SAY.

by Steve M 2009-10-02 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: What a waste of time and resources

What's the diffy, Upstate?  Dems have already lost the next 37 election cycles, AMIRITE?!?!

by fogiv 2009-10-02 02:03PM | 0 recs
Come on . . .

If you think Obama cares nothing about getting healthcare reform passed or getting people back to work, you are the clueless one.  Those two issues have been the primary focus of his time in office.  

Just because the President takes an overnight flight to make a personal pitch for Chicago (and also to meet with the general running the Afghanistan military effort), doesn't mean he hasn't been focused on those other issues!

by CDinBoston 2009-10-02 02:06PM | 0 recs
Because the 2016 Olympics

wouldn't have helped anyone back home?

This diarist is clueless.

by DTOzone 2009-10-02 02:13PM | 0 recs
This was just stupid

Any idiot could see that it was Rio's year.

First, Brazil is a nation on the rise with an emerging economy.  Countries like that have a vested interest in spending big bucks on self promotion by hosting the olympics.  Second, Brazil is having explosive growth in the midst of global downturn.  So they will actually have the money to blow.  Third, South America has never hosted an Olympics, the U.S. has hosted 8, so clearly it was Rio's turn.

Yet in the face of that Obama gambled his prestige and political capital on the idea that Chicago would be a good place to host the olympics for no other reason than Michelle is from Chicago and her father loved sports.

And yes, I think this is a serious blow to Obama's international prestige and that it will compromise his ability to get things done on other fronts.

by dMarx 2009-10-02 02:48PM | 0 recs
Disagree completely

if any idiot could see it's Rio year, then how the hell does it severly damage Obama? It's not like he was responsible for Chicago's loss if any idiot know they were going to lose anyway.

by DTOzone 2009-10-02 02:56PM | 0 recs
Why didn't Obama see it?

Don't you get it.  Although any idiot could see that it was going to Rio, Obama didn't.

by dMarx 2009-10-02 03:27PM | 0 recs
He DID see it

that's why he didn't want to go until he was pressured to.

ugh, here;

Id prefer to not have my name published if you post any of this, but I wanted to give you some inside perspective on the Olympic planning as I had the privilege to work and help with some of the architecture and planning proposal for Chicago's Bid.

Mainly, this is just an email to say that regardless of the headline on Drudge, and your comment that the IOC might not enjoy being "big-footed" by Obama, that is not the case. In fact, it was probably helpful, even though we were voted out in the first round. Almost every other country has their leader making personal appearances in support of major international architecture and planning endeavors, but the American president. There have been a number of projects, New Mariinsky Theater in St Petersberg, Russia (for example), where all the finalists, were supported by the leader of their country in having a call placed to the committee, however, the US architect/planner never receives that level of support or interest from the President. So it can only be refreshing to have the President support its country in these types of selections.

A few months ago, (getting back to the Olympic selection) it was made clear to us that Chicago was going to have some difficulty in gaining the selection for a number of reasons including that we have had a large percentage of games hosted here, but most importantly, that we do not have the best international reputation at this time, and it well known that it is a frustrating and difficult process compared to the other host countries for travelers to gain admittance into the US. There was not a lot that could be done with our planning about this, but it was still brought up as an unofficial "official" concern of the IOC. I think Obama's visit was prob in some effort to help remove this concern from the selection committee. I would say from knowledge of work on this bid, as well as having produced work to assist with London's planning effort for Foreign Office Architects in London (before starting my own practice in Chicago) that there was little chance that the decision would be able to be changed this late in the game, and that at this point (the last week), most of the IOC already knows their rankings, and are just discussing the top two. So, again, regardless of Obama's influence (or lack of), at best, all he would have been able to do was help push over the top, or slightly hurt, but not much more. The decision was most likely already made that Chicago would not host it a few weeks ago by the IOC.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archive s/2009/10/not_their_kinda_town.php#more? ref=fpblg

If he didn't go, he'd be blamed for the bid's failure, so he chose to make the trip, knowing it would likely fail.

by DTOzone 2009-10-02 04:57PM | 0 recs
Because ...

He put himself in a situation where he was the biggest loser on the international stage, which harms his prestige and calls into question his judgment.

It is not the gravity of the loss that is at issue but the visibility of it.

Rio is so obviously the best choice for 2016.  How anybody could miss that I don't know.

by dMarx 2009-10-02 03:26PM | 0 recs
Exactly

It made him look incredibly weak on the international stage.  He seems to be trying to do his best impression of Barney Fife.  

by Kent 2009-10-02 03:34PM | 0 recs
WE ARE DOOOOOOOOMED

Jerome Eeyore-mstrong and Wet BlanKent in one thread!  Who says MyDD isn't going strong?!

by thatrangeofshadesbetweenredandbluestuff 2009-10-02 04:35PM | 0 recs
Do the Prime Ministers of Japan and Spain

look like big losers too?

just askin'

by DTOzone 2009-10-02 04:58PM | 0 recs
Cheap political shots

What about His Imperial Majesty Akihito?
Or His Majesty Juan Carlos I?

The royal families of Japan and Spain were also in attendance, along with their heads of state.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. When Chicago lost, all of America lost. Losing the Olympics means losing money and losing jobs.

Rio was obviously the odds on favorite, but I give Our President much credit for stopping by to make the hard sell and try and win one for us.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-02 08:19PM | 0 recs
clarifaction

the monarchs ARE the heads of state.

Prime Ministers are head of government.

Obama is both.

by DTOzone 2009-10-02 08:35PM | 0 recs
Agreed

And europeans can never understand that about our presidents. But the point I was making is that both parliamentary/government heads of state and monarchy heads of state were present from those nations.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-02 09:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Obamas' get last place for Chicago

I mean it would have been good for Chicago to get the Olympics but the IOC had to be insane if they awarded the Olympics to a US city third time in 25 years, when they had a whole continent vying for attention. It was a good effort but slightly misguided.

by tarheel74 2009-10-02 04:45PM | 0 recs
Madrid

Madrid would have been the fourth games in Europe in seven tries (28 years).

I agree that Rio is an excellent choice. And the appropriate choice. I would have loved for the games to be in Chicago, and it would have meant jobs and money for America.

But I find the dim right taking cheap shots at Obama intellectually dishonest. Obama didn't come in last. America did. He went to fight an uphill battle for us against a superior choice, and we came up short.

Ed Schultz is right. The conservatives applauding Chicago's loss is the Jane Fonda in North Vietnam of our generation.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-02 08:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Madrid

The conservatives applauding Chicago's loss is the Jane Fonda in North Vietnam of our generation.

and so is Jerome.

by DTOzone 2009-10-02 08:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Madrid

No, he's more like the random Larouchite who's politically rightist but cheers Jane Fonda for some reason that nobody can detect.  In my bizarro analogy.

It doesn't have to make sense.

by Jess81 2009-10-02 08:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Madrid

Saying Obama came in last means Obama could have changed the outcome, and if Obama could have changed the outcome, then wasn't it correct to go?

The only argument against Obama going is that Chicago never stood a chance, and that it was a waste of resources. Okay. I can buy that. I disagree with it, but I can accept it as a logically sound argument.

There is no logic behind the statement that Obama came in last.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-02 09:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Madrid

Europe is not a nation. That Madrid even has a shot was amazing given that Barcelona hosted the summer Olympics in 1992. Rio was always going to win this one. I would have thought the choice would be between Tokyo and Rio, Last time Japan hosted the summer Olympics was in 1964 (although they did host the winter Olympics as late as 1998). But realistically US had a slim chance, since WW2 US has hosted summer Olympics 2 times in the last 25 years and winter Olympics 2 times in the last 30 years, more than any other single country. The IOC would have appeared incredibly biased if they had awarded the Olympics to Chicago again.

by tarheel74 2009-10-03 07:30AM | 0 recs
Thank You, Obamas

Joe Scarborough?:


...what we saw from some conservative corners regarding the President's failed Olympics bid was just plain stupid.

I'm happy for Rio and think it is past time that South America got a chance to host the Olympic Games. But put me down as one conservative who is glad my president flew across the ocean to try to bring the 2016 Games to America.

Nice try, President Obama. And thanks for taking time away from your young girls for the sake of your hometown and your country, Michelle. I know that's never an easy thing to do.

Joe Scarborough - Thank You, Mr. President Huffington Post 2 Oct 09

Read it and weep.  Politics makes strange bedfellows and when the "times they are a changin'" it just gets stranger.  At some point  ya' gotta' choose which side you are on and it ain't just us vs them, is it?

by Shaun Appleby 2009-10-02 06:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank You, Obamas

Is there a bigger whore than Joe Scarborough? He's thinking something about getting something.... always.

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-10-02 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't gloat to much

about disagreeing with Joe Scarboro, especially  when he's right. You agree with Limbaugh, Beck, and Schnitt (who are never right) on this.

How's that feel?

by QTG 2009-10-02 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank You, Obamas

Frankly, I admire your intellectual honesty in all this, it's not like we don't know where you stand and that you haven't been consistent over time.  And your psephology is not the issue, I can see you place a high value on that metric and it's not in dispute.

But this is the Democrat we've got, for better or worse, and things just might turn out better than you seem to think they will.  You still have a fairly influential 'bully pulpit' and I just wonder, given your antipathy for the Obama administration and it's lacklustre performance, by your estimation, eight months into his administration just what it is you are actually rooting for?  I mean between now and 2010 or 2012.  I'm pretty happy with the dislocation of the Right and the initiatives, admittedly unrealised, on which we seem to be embarked.  Jury's still out, to be sure.  

I have enjoyed your 'hospitality' throughout the long primary campaign, and we certainly didn't always agree about everything, and for that I will be always grateful, but where do we go from here?

by Shaun Appleby 2009-10-02 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank You, Obamas

Is there a bigger whore than Joe Scarborough?

I don't know, Jerome. I'm trying to think....

Meanwhile, Obama can't win Pennsylvania or Ohio

by brit 2009-10-03 12:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank You, Obamas

Yes, I believe Wikipedia lists his name as the "Blogfather".    He's douchier and more of a whore than Scarborough can imagine.

by 30000Fine 2009-10-03 09:31AM | 0 recs
CLEARLY this means

the Obama administration is DOOMED to complete and utter failure. Good eye, Jerome.

by sricki 2009-10-02 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Obamas' get last place for Chicago

Jerome Armstrong - the Luther Vandross of bloggers.

Another platinum hit.

by Jess81 2009-10-02 08:52PM | 0 recs
I have not been over here

much in the last year. Now I remember why.

For a minute there I thought Rush Lumpybag had become a front pager on mydd.

Good job Jerome. I don't plan on visiting again anytime soon.

by Hollede 2009-10-02 09:14PM | 0 recs
Nice of you to stop by!

Thanks for participating in the cash for clickers program. ;)

by NavyBlueWife 2009-10-02 09:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Nice of you to stop by!

Oops. Didn't even think about that. I just heard about some disgusting diary FP'd on mydd and thought, "naw, couldn't be that bad".

I guess I was wrong. I wish I could figure out how to post the Limbaugh tube I was referring to. But Jerome's nonsense actually makes Rush look better. At least we all know Rush is an opportunistic, right wing, fucktard who wants the Democrats to fail. What is Jerome's excuse?

Oh and pardon the apostrophes;~J I never can get those right.

by Hollede 2009-10-02 09:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Nice of you to stop by!

Some of you sycophants can't seem to handle a little jab.

What exactly is so terrible about Jerome's post that would make "Rush look better?"

"Obama gets last place for Chicago."  

That's it.  Did he post that Obama is a complete and utter arrogant failure who thought his "charm offensive" would make the members of the IOC swoon over him and handle Chicago the Olympics 2016?  No.  A mere headline is all that was needed to get the sycophants riled up.

If you're political animal, grow a thick skin.  It's politics and Obama is President.  If you can't handle something as light as this, will your head explode in the next 4-8 years.

by FilbertSF 2009-10-02 10:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Nice of you to stop by!

Wow.  Touchy?

by Jess81 2009-10-02 10:40PM | 0 recs
Feeling a Bit Blue?


...just didn't like that he would [win] because I knew he'd be a disappointment.

It's not like we don't know where Jerome stands.

by Shaun Appleby 2009-10-02 10:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Nice of you to stop by!

LOL. You should check on my record here at mydd before calling me a sycophant or suggesting that I need to grow a thick skin.

Oh and my head will be just fine. I lived through the impeachment bullshit with President Clinton. I think I can handle this.

by Hollede 2009-10-02 10:46PM | 0 recs
What did he do?

He posted an incoherent diary, his first in weeks, worthy of a high schooler's blog that said nothing except linked a song that implied the President was a loser and he appeared to be thrilled about it.

This wasn't a little jab...this was a release of childish bitterness.

by DTOzone 2009-10-02 11:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Nice of you to stop by!

Well, I see you are getting  some of my "special" treatment from the cast of expected people.

This is what happens when you emotionally invest in a candidate rather than in policy outcomes and politics as a tool for bettering people's lives. For example, I ask quite often why should we treat Obama differently than any other politician only to get a lot of attitude.

I supported Edwards in the primary. Yes, to my embarrassment now because at the  time he was the economic populist. But my support was solely based on his positions and strategic outlook. Not Edwards.

Thus, when he dropped out, it was emotionally easy enough for me to say I would support either Clinton or Obama, which ever won, with both my money and time.

Indeed, I sent in several hundred dollars of my money to Obama, emailed friends for him and did a small amount (not as much money or time as 2004 ) and so it is a bit amusing to read how I "hate" him because I question his leadership decisions and policies. If I hated him I would have just voted, and not donated a dime.

I even defended wrongly Pres Obama's staff choice for the WH and cabinet picks. I got in trouble with Paul Rosenberg for doing so, and I said the same sort of give Obama a chance to Armstrong.

The problem is not that I hate him. The problem is that I disagree with what he has done since being in office. But, we are not suppose to do  that unless we speak in hushed reverence to his greatness and make it clear we are loyalist. I refuse to do this.

Indeed, I got folks (some of whom are chirping at your comment now) who seem to only come into diaries I write because they don't like prior comments I made about President Obama rather than responding to the substance of my diaries. It is odd, but they are what they are. As someone told me in an email- people recognize what these people are doing here so don't sweat it.  

by bruh3 2009-10-03 09:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Obamas' get last place for Chicago

Is Jerome even a Democrat any more?  

The only posts he makes now a days are either about other countries or they are negative towards Democrats.

by Bobby Obama 2009-10-03 05:10AM | 0 recs
I guess Jerome got what he wanted (sigh).

I have clicked on mydd more in the last 12 hours than in the last six months.

"Is there a bigger whore than Joe Scarborough? He's thinking something about getting something.... always."

I think it is rather self evident at this point who is the bigger whore...

by Hollede 2009-10-03 07:32AM | 0 recs
wow.

awesome diary! highly rec'd. makes you really think about... wait, where is the rec button?

by canadian gal 2009-10-03 01:09PM | 0 recs
lulz (n/t)

by fogiv 2009-10-03 08:11PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------