Jump to content

Is Michelle Obama Enough?


Soaring

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Will a lunch be enough though to sway African IOC members? This luncheon will be with other leaders than voting members and in the past, it took a lot more than a lunch (mainly cars, gifts, scholarships to US colleges, etc..) to get their "objective vote"! I hope it will help the Chicago bid but am doubtful this will have an impact.

Maybe Oprah can just have gifts under the seats in Copenhagen like she does for her shows to sway those votes on the fence!

For Obama, going is a risk - if he goes and Chicago still loses, he comes back with "egg on his face" and still has to convince the US Congress to pass health care - I don't think the two are related at all but going and having his 'charm' not work certainly will not boost his confidence for health care or for the 2010 elections in which the Republicans are already licking their chops for!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Obama, going is a risk - if he goes and Chicago still loses, he comes back with "egg on his face" and still has to convince the US Congress to pass health care - I don't think the two are related at all but going and having his 'charm' not work certainly will not boost his confidence for health care or for the 2010 elections in which the Republicans are already licking their chops for!

And if he doesn't go and Chicago loses, then everyone will blame him. If he does go and Chicago loses then at least they can't blame him for trying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OBAMA WILL HOST A LUNCH FOR AFRICAN SUB-SAHARA LEADERS AT THE U.N. NEXT WEEK!!

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl..._W9hXgD9ANCAUO0

Jim Jones, you were saying??

well gee that is nice but how many Sub Saharan IOC members do you think would be at the UN for this meeting? Answer probably ZERO. Then you look at the membership that is sub Saharan and have IOC members . that goes to half the membership from Africa. First Obama will have to mend some fences for some nations in which Hillary on her tour broke with d

diplomatic protocol and in the case of Nigeria was called out for it by the host government . Obama certainly did not grace himself to Kenya. South Africa ,Nigeria or Cameroun on his first African Tour . Obama visited one African Nation on that tour being Ghana.

Again the Chicago 2016 campaign is not Atlanta 1996 where you have a civil right s figure like Dr Andrew Young being a factor in reaching to African Delegates. One Such key Delegate was Nigeria IOC member Dr. Major General Henry Adefope. This was an influencing force for Atlanta 1996. How much Traction would Obama have with not IOC members in attendance and heads of state from africa who would have other issues on their minds ? Again very little. Many of these IOC members might be in contact with their heads of state once or twice a year if any. IOC members are generally not part of the government.

Who would Obama not be talking to at this event ? Francis Nyangweso of Uganda ? Kip Keino of Kenya whom Obama snubbed on his first Africa tour as Pres ? Patrick Chamunda of Zambia ?

I am sure a Kip Keino would have to wonder why Obama would snub his fathers homeland which was certainly supportive of his presidential run to the white house.

jim jones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if he doesn't go and Chicago loses, then everyone will blame him. If he does go and Chicago loses then at least they can't blame him for trying.

True but he would be blamed by the Chicago 2016 bid team and the USOC which is pretty small in comparison to the confidence he needs to pass health care and in getting ready for next year's elections. I don't think going and failing would derail these things but Obama's "charm" is one of his best assets - anything that shakes that would not be advisable.

And in terms of $$$, health care represents 1/6 of the entire economy and will soon be 1/5. I'd rather him stay and get health care right for all Americans than go to Denmark so we can have a party in 2016!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would've Bill Clinton gone to Singapore anyway in 2005 for New York 2012. The "imperativeness" of having top government officials at the IOC sessions wasn't there. Singapore was just the beginning of such scenarios.

For starters, Hillary was there anyway, & secondly, & probably the most important factor, back in 2005 for the 2012 race in Singapore, this "de facto requirement" of having your Heads of States there to help win your bid was just the beggining with Tony Blair starting the so-called "tradition". Then came Putin in 2007 batting for Sochi 2014 in Guatemala City. So now, it seems very, very apparent that the Olympic Bid races have a different equation to them that are new. So I wouldn't be surprised at all if Bill went to Copenhagan if asked. The stakes are much, much different now & *new* than in 2005 in Singapore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^

There was a sense during that time that world leaders (or previous) could help. George Bush made a video, but didn't show up in person. I am sure NY 2012 knew that Blair would be going, and French President Chirac was there too. All I am saying is that Obama and Clinton don't necessarily have the best relationship, and I would be surprised if Bill did go. If Clinton did show up with Michelle it would be the next best thing, plus Bill Clinton knows how to work a room.

I am not opposed to Clinton going, I just don't want to keep my hopes up. I find it highly unlikely (90% chance) that Barack will go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but it's very apparent now that world leaders are almost a "must" to show up at the sessions now, even though Jacques Rogge states otherwise. Besides, the U.S. was really very unpopular back in '05, with the Iraq war & so forth, & surely having Bush there wouldn't have helped NY anyway. Not to mention, New York's bid by the time of the Singapore session, was doomed too fail anyway after the whole stadium debacle & to a lesser degree, Vancouver 2010 already in N. America. And even though if Barack & Bill may not get along that well, this wouldn't be about Obama but rather about Bill. If Barack doesn't go but Bill does, what better for him than to add yet another culmination to his plate by bringing the Olympics back to the U.S. Bill, afterall, did manage to do vitrtually the impossible by bringing those girls back home from N. Korea, AFTER being sentenced to 12 years of hard labor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True but he would be blamed by the Chicago 2016 bid team and the USOC which is pretty small in comparison to the confidence he needs to pass health care and in getting ready for next year's elections. I don't think going and failing would derail these things but Obama's "charm" is one of his best assets - anything that shakes that would not be advisable.

And in terms of $$$, health care represents 1/6 of the entire economy and will soon be 1/5. I'd rather him stay and get health care right for all Americans than go to Denmark so we can have a party in 2016!

I would agree to that if it weren't for one thing; This whole Health Care business is NOT going to be settled in just ONE day, in this case Oct 2. Obama could still spend a few hours in Copenhagen, make his peace & then be on his way. That little amount of time spent lobbying for Chicago's behalf is going to do absolutely *nothing* to resolve the Health Care issue in this country, but it definitely could have the impact of possibly changing a city forever & bringing the glory of an Olympics to a beautiful city on the Lakefront.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI, I am not arguing with you. You just seem so convinced that Bill Clinton will show up in Barack Obama's place, which like I said is not impossible, but I am not going to put my hopes up when there is not one shred of information out there suggesting that Clinton would actually do such a thing.

You listed the positives about Clinton going to Copenhagen, but you failed to address the consequence. Say Clinton did go, and Chicago loses, then people will say "that Bill Clinton is no Barack Obama, the IOC really only wanted Obama to show." Now that view is kind of stupid in my opinion, but it will be looked upon that way.

Regarding North Korea - the North Koreans ASKED for Bill Clinton to come, and all the negotiating occurred before he stepped foot in NK, so it was already a foregone conclusion with the State Department that NK would release the women. The IOC vote has no guarantees, which is one reason why Obama may not be willing to take the risk of coming home empty handed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm not at all convinced that Bill would show up. I was merely stating the possible scenario.

And yes, for everything there are consequences, absolutely. I'm just getting a little perturbed of hearing by some; that if Chicago loses, that it could/would be looked upon as a negative for whomever went to Copenhagen. Everything involves a risk, & if people were afraid to take risks, then there are a lot of things that wouldn't get accomplished in this world. Like Obama running for president. All I'm saying is that *someone* should step up to the plate. It's like all the very important figures seem to not want to get involed (at least that's the picture that many are painting) simplty bacuase they don't want to come back home with "egg on their face, & to me that just seems like a cop-out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm not at all convinced that Bill would show up. I was merely stating the possible scenario.

And yes, for everything there are consequences, absolutely. I'm just getting a little perturbed of hearing by some; that if Chicago loses, that it could/would be looked upon as a negative for whomever went to Copenhagen. Everything involves a risk, & if people were afraid to take risks, then there are a lot of things that wouldn't get accomplished in this world. Like Obama running for president. All I'm saying is that *someone* should step up to the plate. It's like all the very important figures seem to not want to get involed (at least that's the picture that many are painting) simplty bacuase they don't want to come back home with "egg on their face, & to me that just seems like a cop-out.

According to almost anyone here who isn't in favor of Chicago, the common theme is that just about everything is a deal-breaking negative and an overwhelming risk for the Chicago 2016--regardless of who is making a decision, why, or of what importance that decision really has or who is raising the topic. We hear every few weeks that Chicago 2016's heading towards certain failure because (Obama is/isn't going, Chicago 2016 has/has not made an effort at community outreach, No Games Chicago is/isn't making ridiculous statements, France has/has not directed its IOC members to support Rio, the EC report is/isn't enthusiastic about everything in the bid, the stadium isn't permanent/a permanent stadium would attract opposition, the USOC is/isn't doing what is necessary to ____)

As far as I can determine, no one in a position to ask nor anyone in a position to receive a request nor anyone in a position to plan for any particular dignitary's attendance nor anyone who is arranging any dignitary's schedule is writing on this forum. And no one mentioned here has definitively avoided involvement (and if they aren't involved, their reasons may or may not have anything to do with the reasons stated here).

On the Chicago supporters side, I largely see posters who are outside the bid committee and who are largely observing and speculating from the outside--rather than people who are receiving information or guidance from the bid committee (most of what I see here is ofen not consistent with what I hear from Chicago 2016's leaders during the events I've attended and from the reports that I've read). Honestly, it's not as though we have any direct say or influence on who is participating or any means to place a formal request for participation. We really shouldn't be taking responsibility.

CHItown '16

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI and ChiTown, I completely agree with your statements

Yes, speculation is really what most of us go on, and really none of us will know what will happen come October 2nd. I am mostly going off a "gut feeling" and news articles can only provide so much.

Several months ago I was thinking that if Barack doesn't go to Copenhagen, Michelle would. Also, when I heard about the White House event to take place tomorrow (announced early last week), I automatically didn't think it was a good sign for Barack going to Copenhagen. These feelings have come to fruition.

I find it highly unlikely Obama would show up, simply because he is really going out of his way in trying to persuade us that Michelle "is better qualified" to go to Copenhagen. If he was really still on the fence about his decision, then he would not be so insistent on selling us the idea of Michelle going.

His recent statements are not helping, as it just shows a leader who is not willing to go the extra mile for his own city/country. Even Dick Pound was telling Chicago 2016 "to twist his arm," but do you think IOC members are going to be as receptive to a leader who made it so unclear as to whether they were going to even come?

It would have been better for Obama to just play coy for another week or so, but no, he is now making it very clear that Michelle is the ambassador, and he will support the bid from home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, Obama does not want anything to detract from the Health Care bill -- be it the fate of the 2016 Olympics in his home city or not. At least this president has his priorities right. One hopes that maybe 55% of my IOC colleagues will see and understand it that way...that the universe does not revolve around us. If they don't, then I am sad for this organization and where it's head is at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Nail on the head. It's too easy to lose perspective with these things (not that I'm saying other Chicago supporters have).

Unfortunately, is it asking too much to believe the IOC won't hold it against Chicago should Obama not show?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is how it might play out if he went. If he went and Chicago won BUT the Health Care bill stalled and was defeated...what would it look like? That this president could ONLY deliver the prize of a 2-week party but NOT a life-and-death issue for many Americans and which he HAD promised to work for when he was elected?

I think that is the greater contrasting picture Obama is up against. But if the Health Care bill passed and Chicago lost, the latter would only be a sad note for several thousand people whereas the former would be a lifesaver for MILLIONS of his countrymen. Those are the pros and cons of Obama going.

It's unfortunate that the friggin' selection is taking place at this time. But as they say in life, timing is everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Bill Clinton would be a very positive asset for Chicago's chances if he decides to accompany Michelle Obama to Copenhagen.I don't think there are many politicians who can charm like he can and he remains very popular with Europeans and others who have fond memories of his time in office (in stark contrast to Bush).

I think Bill and Michelle would be a very good combination to present and lobby for Chicago's bid.If I were on the bid committee I would be trying my best to get him on board! B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Bill Clinton would be a very positive asset for Chicago's chances if he decides to accompany Michelle Obama to Copenhagen.I don't think there are many politicians who can charm like he can and he remains very popular with Europeans and others who have fond memories of his time in office (in stark contrast to Bush).

I think Bill and Michelle would be a very good combination to present and lobby for Chicago's bid.If I were on the bid committee I would be trying my best to get him on board! B)

I would like to see him go as well. But they might have to wait announcing that until 3 or so days before when it's really certain that Obama will not go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is how it might play out if he went. If he went and Chicago won BUT the Health Care bill stalled and was defeated...what would it look like? That this president could ONLY deliver the prize of a 2-week party but NOT a life-and-death issue for many Americans and which he HAD promised to work for when he was elected?

I think that is the greater contrasting picture Obama is up against. But if the Health Care bill passed and Chicago lost, the latter would only be a sad note for several thousand people whereas the former would be a lifesaver for MILLIONS of his countrymen. Those are the pros and cons of Obama going.

It's unfortunate that the friggin' selection is taking place at this time. But as they say in life, timing is everything.

I've been thinking about that the last few months, that the host city decision is in October this year. All the other times this decade, both summer & winter, the vote sessions have been held in early July. Even the next one in Durban in 2011 is going back to early July again. The 2016 decision, going by the July time-line, should've been decided already almost 3 months ago. But nooo, they had to have it in October this time for whatever reason. Barack could've gone in July, cause he wouldn't have had his plate as full as he does now with this Health Care Bill. But yet again, all this Health Care business ISN'T going to be resolved on or before Oct 2, & it shouldn't be held against him if he happened to make an appearance in Copenhagen for just a few hours, either. But people I guess will always point fingers. If the man doesn't wind up going, I hope someone else with also an influential character does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if Barack were to make an appearance in Copenhagen and Chicago lost, he absolutely would not have egg on his face. Everyone knows that the IOC has their own unique reasons for voting the way they do. Barack has not been coordinating the bid effort. I actually think that, irrespective of the ultimate outcome, Barack's presence in Copenhagen would be a meaningful gesture to the international community. Last November voters were convinced that Barack was the best person to help repair relationships between the United States and the rest of the world. By appearing in Copenhagen, Obama would do just that -- even if Chicago lost.

Incidentally, a single day is not going to win or lose this healthcare fight. If Barack traveled to Copenhagen and Chicago won and then the bill was defeated it absolutely would have NOTHING to do with his brief trip across the pond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...