Dropping the Olympic Torch: Lessons (or Lack Thereof) of a Failed Bid

Notwithstanding the last-minute blitz by Barack and Michelle Obama -- and Oprah -- it now seems apparent that Chicago was never in the cards for the 2016 Olympics. The reasons were myriad. The Games have never been held in South America, Brazil's charismatic president also plugged his nation, International Olympic Committee Chairman Jacques Rogge was determined to steer the games to Rio de Janeiro, and -- let's face it -- the election of Obama last year has hardly eradicated anti-Americanism and didn't repeal the laws of (human) nature.

That Chicago didn't even make the first cut -- Obama's adopted hometown was eliminated in the voting first round, along with Tokyo -- was probably due more to former IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch, a Spaniard, who made an emotive plea for Madrid. Reminding the IOC members of his long service to their organization, he noted that, at age 89, "I am very near the end of my time."

In Chicago, Jesse Jackson pronounced himself filled with "shock, trauma and sadness" at the vote, and said he suspected there were "underlying reasons" for Chicago's rejection. In reality, those reasons were not so mysterious.

Brazil offered the IOC plans for $11 billion in investments to host the Games, far higher than the other contenders, and President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said that he represented the hopes of 190 million Brazilians -- and all the rest of Latin America. "For the others it will be just one more Games, for us it will boost the self-esteem of Brazilians," he told IOC members in Copenhagen. "It's time to address this imbalance. The Olympic Games belongs to all people, all continents, all humanity."

Viewed through the lens of partisan U.S. politics, the rebuff of Chicago and its high-powered contingent was not welcome news for the first-year American president. The news came a few hours after the Labor Department reported that unemployment had ticked up again, this time to 9.8 percent, and as the administration's health care legislation appears stalled, and his own national security team is divided over how to proceed in the war in Afghanistan. Indeed, Obama met Friday with Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, in a surprise visit aboard Air Force One while the plane idled in Denmark before bringing the president home.

Republican critics had sniped at the president for even making the trip at this time, and his failure to bring home the gold will be seen in some quarters as indicative of a presidency that began with high hopes but has been grounded in its first year in office.

For what it's worth, I don't attach much credence to this carping. What was lost, really? A few hours in the president's schedule? He saw a possible opportunity, and went for it. Win or lose, isn't that what the Olympic spirit is all about? My well-sourced, Chicago-centric colleague Lynn Sweet agrees with me, as do most of my Politics Daily colleagues, who have other interesting observations:

Patricia Murphy: Win or lose, Obama had to help make the pitch for an American city to host the Games. Heads of state are now the pitchmen and Obama is nothing if not a salesman. Had he not gone, and Chicago lost, he would have shared in the blame. At the very least, the Americans can depart Denmark knowing they did not leave anything on the table.

Jill Lawrence: There's no downside to rooting for your country, which is why President Obama did the right thing by personally making the case for Chicago. While he didn't make the sale, the trip was not without accomplishments. His presence underscored the new U.S. willingness to engage with the international community and his remarks reminded the world about many positive aspects of America -- not least, the opportunities that allowed him to win the presidency and the diversity that more and more defines us. At a time when domestic politics is fraught with anti-immigrant rhetoric and sentiment, Obama also had a chance to present America as welcoming and hospitable to citizens of the world. It would have been nice for a second-term President Obama to cap his tenure with a summer Olympics. In the short term, a win would have been a psychological lift during a difficult political and economic period at home. Still, the trip was a useful exercise -- perhaps more useful than we know, given that Obama and Gen. McChrystal were able to squeeze in a face-to-face chat on Pakistan and Afghanistan on the tarmac in Copenhagen.

Lynn Sweet: Talk about the Chicago blues. Chicago's 2016 Olympic bid -- and the prestige of its most famous global brands, President Obama, First Lady Michelle and Oprah Winfrey -- suffered a humiliating blow when the city not only lost but was dropped in the first round of voting.

The White House put its muscle behind the Chicago bid, with Obama tapping Valerie Jarrett, a close pal and senior adviser, to oversee the administration drive for the Games, even creating a White House office of sport. We'll see what happens to that.

The embarrassment will be a tough blow because the Obamas will be associated with a failure -- on the same day as another dismal jobs report, questions about troop levels in Afghanistan and health care legislation facing a questionable future. But a bad patch can be just that.

In international diplomacy, the usual rule is the president or prime minister does not show up for a summit without a deal being pre-cooked. In this case, Obama flew to Copenhagen -- a trip lasting less than 24 hours -- and delivered remarks about his adopted city, with its diverse population, along with a heavy dose about how during his watch the U.S. is determined to try to re-engage the world. A worthy message no matter the outcome.

So it was risky for Obama. He tried and he lost. That's what competitors do.

For Mrs. Obama, the Copenhagen trip was her first assignment where she had a responsibility to deliver. She lobbied, brought friend Winfrey over to crank up the buzz factor but still could not avoid a loss.

The city of big shoulders will shrug it off, as will a White House stuffed with Chicagoans. There might even be a silver lining for Team Obama. Mayor Richard Daley can't seem to run the city without scandals, and if Chicago's bid had prevailed, it would have generated years of news stories about how the Obama circle is benefiting from contracts and jobs associated with the Games.

Walter Shapiro: In a devastating personal rebuke to Barack Obama that jeopardizes the political future of the president and the entire Democratic Party, the 2016 Olympics were just awarded to a foreign land. That, at least, is going to be the weekend's political spin -- repeated as an unalterable truth in the echo chambers of television and print -- as if the vote by the International Olympic Committee were the first primary of the 2012 election campaign.

Nonsense. Barack and Michelle Obama's collective failure as Olympic hucksters will have all but been forgotten by the first pitch of the World Series, let alone the first commercial of the Super Bowl. In sports-mad America, there are too many seasons, too many epic games, too much hype and hustle for voters to brood endlessly about something that will not happen until 2016. There are three national elections between now and 2016 -- and it defies reason to believe that the success of Chicago's rivals in carrying off the Olympic gold will be an issue in any of them.

Yes, it might have been politically meaningful if Obama had snagged the 2012 Olympics for his hometown, since he could have basked in the glow from the five interlocking rings all through the run-up to his reelection campaign. But in 2016, Obama will either be a lame-duck second-term president or a former government official who had just published his memoirs of his failed four years in the White House. By then, Obama's legacy will have been set in stone and his Olympic moment (or more precisely his failure as a torch-bearer for Chicago) will have been a very small part of it.

It defies logic to believe that the Olympics will be an issue in a single congressional election outside of the Chicago area in 2010. Imagine a voter thinking as she goes to the polls next year in, say, Dayton, "The economy's better and Obama passed health care. But I'm going to have to watch the 2016 Olympics on television, so I'm voting Republican." If there is truly someone like that, then I suspect that she may be the weirdest single-issue voter in the history of the Republic.

Politics is about real things like the economy (which is looking a bit shaky for the Obama team with today's unemployment numbers) and health care. If getting the Olympics is so transcendently important in politics, then please explain why British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is on the ropes with the London games less than three years away.