"Mr. President, put that coffee down. Coffee is for closers."- Yid with Lid with a Glenngary Glenn Ross reference.
I believe there are two main reasons why the IOC did not choose Chicago to host the 2016 Olympic Games.
The first reason is rooted in America's historic relationship with the nations of the world. During the Cold War, a hell of a lot of countries relied on America as their primary and even only defender against Soviet aggression. They felt a real threat and on a very basic level were glad America was able to counter that threat.
That went on for half a century. Flip the calendar ahead to the last 20 years. While nowadays America will still defend these countries (which by the way should be open to debate in the post Soviet world) there is no longer a direct threat to the security of these nations.
And while these nations feel great about the threat being removed, under the surface there is also a sense of national shame and humiliation that they as sovereign nations could not defeat that threat themselves. That some other country had to do it for them.
So how does that anger and humiliation play out? It plays out every time one of these counties has a chance through International treaties, meetings, councils etc. to vote against something that the United States is on the record as wanting. (Or voting for something the U.S. is publicly against.)
By going against the U.S., these nations feel a sense of empowerment. In their minds it helps ease the sting of humiliation of not being able to provide a national defense for their own families. It helps them forget how feeble they were (are).
Thus, when Obama decided to put the full weight of the Presidency behind the Chicago bid, it was the beginning of the end for the second city's hopes. It was bound to fail, because for countries that can't defend themselves, the opportunity to diss the most powerful nation in the world does not come along that often. And when it does come along, these weak countries use it to pretend that they are not dependent on America anymore. And that's why American President's usually don't get involved in the process. Why lend Presidential prestige to a process that is rigged against your interests? The President is learning the hard way that the skills that brought him to the Presidency of the Harvard Law Review don't work when you deal with nations.
The second reason the Chicago bid failed is that once Obama became involved all we heard was "Chicago will get it, because Obama wants it!" As if that was a qualification to host the Olympics. We heard nothing about the facilities, the Olympic Village, security, the money Chicago was willing to spend. Just "Obama wants the Olympics in Chicago".
As if that were enough reason for the IOC to turn the games over to Chi-town.
Even the sales pitch by Obama and his peeps was woefully weak. Check out this rationale from Obama pit bill Rahm Emanuel:
"There's no better city in the United States or the world to host the international community than Chicago -- because of the diversity,'' Emanuel said. "You're going to bring literally the whole world together for Olympic games, sports games, and competition. Chicago's a great competitive city -- has always been that. It has a great amount of diversity and it would be great for Chicago also for not only its diversity but for the economic opportunity that it provides in the sense of jobs and economic growth.
Obama, as well, when asked by the IOC, spoke glowingly of the city of Chicago as a city of diversity.
What a BS response by Emanuel and Obama.
Here's why: By saying Chicago should get the games because of diversity, you are also saying that the other cities should not get the games because of a lack of diversity. You are saying to the committee "In Chicago, we have people from all over the world. Tokyo just has Japanese people, Madrid only has Spanish people, thus Chicago is more qualified."
What a crock. Again, they did not make the case about the facilities in Chicago to handle the Games, they just used...diversity, which is the Democratic party's cure all.
Has any word in modern America been more misused and abused more than the word "diversity"? Liberals use it as a cure all: don't look at the Supreme Court nominee's record, just know that she adds... diversity. Look at us, we are the party of diversity they lecture, when in fact if you are not lock step with the party on affirmative action, abortion and gay issues you are a leper to them. So much for diversity of ideas, huh?
The way liberals use the word diversity reminds me of an old Chris Rock joke. Whenever something was wrong with one of the kids, Rock's father would give them Robitussen. No matter what was ailing them, Robitussen was the cure. It got so bad that if a kid broke their leg, Rock's father would pour Robitussen on the leg, saying "JUST LET THAT TUSSEN GET INTO THE BONE".
Liberals use diversity as their Robitussen. They think it cures everything.
But how could it, when they don't even know what the word means?