I'm not sure if Emmanuel truly believes that, but if he actually thinks Chicago was unique among the candidates in terms of diversity, then he's probably never been to Rio.
You know, I used to get so hot under the collar when conservative talk show hosts, or even republican acquaintances would claim that "liberals" or "left-wingers" wanted us to fail in Iraq or whatnot. I'd get so frustrated when I heard that we wanted the US to fail, just because we hated Bush so much. Then I come here, or glance at Drudgereport. . . and I totally see where they were coming from. Drudge's bizarre fixation on anything that might be possibly embarassing to Obama just totally confuses me. The attitudes of some people are absolutely mind-boggling. It reminds me of the way 5th graders argue. After 8 years of possibly the most damaging presidency in history - the one where all the bad financial stuff happened, by the way, I don't understand how certain people have such vitriolic hate for someone who. . .yeah, just wan Ego, Beerking? Obama? After Clinton and W, you think Obama has an ego? Sometimes I wonder what color the sky is in your world.
Okay, so you'll give Conservatives credit for all the years of good economic performance that preceded the recession? Does Obama own this economy yet? Does he have any responsibility for the 260,000 jobs lost last month, despite the pork-laden "stimulus"? In January, Obama will let the Bush tax cuts expire, and the government will gobble up more of the withering economy. You're an idiot. Topper
I don't think there's much of a debate that Obama has a huge ego and is arrogant. You could say the same about Clinton and you can throw in some other presidents such as Nixon, Kennedy and LBJ and Dubya. But it's the arrogance thing that gets me. Arrogant people like me really take offense to that. Topper
So make the case that Bush was responsible for 9/11 if you feel that way. What I'm saying is that Obama is beginning to take ownership for this economy. He has huge majorities in the Senate and the House. He used it to pass a $787 billion "stimulus" package. The economy grows worse, with unemployment rising and the economy (and tax receipts) shrinking. He's spending his time trying to burden us with a trillion dollar socialized medicine plan and flying over to Copenhagen to payoff his Chicago friends. So I'll ask it this way: Do you think Obama owns any part of this sh!tty economy? Topper
News reaction from across the pond: Obama’s Olympic failure will only add to doubts about his presidency http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6859031.ece There has been a growing narrative taking hold about Barack Obama’s presidency in recent weeks: that he is loved by many, but feared by none; that he is full of lofty vision, but is actually achieving nothing with his grandiloquence. Chicago’s dismal showing yesterday, after Mr Obama’s personal, impassioned last-minute pitch, is a stunning humiliation for this President. It cannot be emphasised enough how this will feed the perception that on the world stage he looks good — but carries no heft. It was only the Olympic Games, the White House will argue — not a high-stakes diplomatic gamble with North Korea. It is always worthwhile when Mr Obama sells America to the rest of the world, David Axelrod, his chief political adviser, said today. But that argument will fall on deaf ears in the US.
Probably very little. First of all, presidents are smaller players in terms of the economy than they are given credit for. Secondly, there is some lagging effect between economic policies and their effect on the economy, so whatever impact his policies do have will probably be seen more after the first year of his administration. But hey, people were blaming Bush for the job losses of 2001, so I guess others will also blame Obama for what's going on in his first year as well. What goes around...
Obama got royally shafted today, but if you start giving importance to this you'll end up blaming Obama for a poor U.S. showing in the World Cup. As defeats go, this is a pretty minor one. Specially because most of the people that gang up on Obama today do not give a flying f--k about the Olympics. I mean, Rupert Murdoch, in the short span of about 12 hours, has said that the Olympics are an economic burden for its host (on the WSJ), and then criticized Obama for not bringing them to Chicago (in that Times article). You can't have it both ways. By the way, that article is quite the load of tripe.
With the games certainly expected to go the the Americas, it was rather surprising that Obama didn't work harder to ensure that the bid would be a success. When Toronto bid for the '08 Summer Olympics (failed) and the '10 Winter Olympics (Successful), you had the leadership out in full force for those bids. You had the may of the bid city, the premier of the province, and the PM leading the delegations. As we saw from Madrid, Tokyo, and Rio the aspect of having the leadership involved was an important one. Madrid was really stuck in a position since London and Sochi would be hosting consecutive Olympics. I think Japan lost because there may be a push to grant South Korea the 2018 Winter Games, as they've lost twice before that. Voting blocs don't seem to have played a role this time around as it seemed it was going to be a selection based on history and merits. I can imagine some people in Argentina tearing their hair out since they had come so close to landing the 1956 Olympics.
I've only read this thread up to page 4, but this comment should be repeated. Rio is the logical choice considering South America hasn't hosted the Olympics yet. They were going to win. Obama should not have gotten involved, this is below his pay grade.
It wouldn't matter. If a city in your country was bidding for an Olympics, your government leaders should be there to give its full support.