Jump to content

Will President Obama Be In Copenhagen?


Pablo

Recommended Posts

Posted September 19, 2009 3:05 PM

by Christi Parsons

Chicago Tribune

President Obama is dispatching an advance team to Copenhagen to pave the way for a possible personal appearance before the Olympic committee next month.

The decision doesn't necessarily mean Obama will be able to make an in-person appeal for his adopted hometown of Chicago, which is bidding to to host the Olympics in 2016, a senior advisor to the president said this afternoon.

But the president wants to make sure he has the option to go, in case he can get away from the health care discussions to make the trip.

Before any presidential trip, the White House advance teams need time to size up the security situation and make arrangements for accomodations -- even for travel the president doesn't end up undertaking. The advance team will travel Monday.

"He wants to preserve his options," the advisor said in an interview today.

Ten days ago, Obama told Chicago Mayor Richard Daley that he might not be able to get away, because of the ongoing effort to pass a health care bill. But Obama still hopes to make the trip if he can do so without jeopardizing the reform bill, aides say.

Whatever happens, First Lady Michelle Obama will still go and make the case for her hometown to host the games.

The White House considers her a persuasive salesperson.

"She is regarded as an essential strength of the strategy, because she was born and raised in Chicago and her life story embodies the Olympic spirit," the Obama advisor said.

Chicago is competing with Madrid, Tokyo and Rio de Janeiro to host the Olympics. The 100-plus member International Olympic Committee will vote on a winner early next month.

Too much concern for a possible absence, don't you think?

President Obama will be there, you be sure. Then we will see what Lula or any other King or PM represents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I don't mean to be rude, but I think it's way out there the fact that Chigagoans and their supporters are SO not comfortable with the fact that Obama might not show up... I mean, for a true, good bid, his presence shoudln't be an issue, as the bid would speak for itself, and would need a president to be there and make it's way up... It sound very 'Obama carries that nation on his back' imo.

If Chicago is real good as you guys think, why do you really mind about Obama going to Denmark?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean to be rude, but I think it's way out there the fact that Chigagoans and their supporters are SO not comfortable with the fact that Obama might not show up... I mean, for a true, good bid, his presence shoudln't be an issue, as the bid would speak for itself, and would need a president to be there and make it's way up... It sound very 'Obama carries that nation on his back' imo.

If Chicago is real good as you guys think, why do you really mind about Obama going to Denmark?

Penis....I mean Denis, like you wouldn't be worried if Lula didn't commit to go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this article about Rio being pretty cocky at this stage:

Obama's Absence Could Diminish Chicago's Chances - Brazil Official

As a head of state, he has a duty to the people who elected him.

Silva told foreign journalists, "the absence of President Barack Obama at the IOC session to choose the host city for the 2016 Olympic Games will strongly handicap the city of Chicago. We are very confident because we realize there is great respect in the international community for the president of the Brazilian republic".

I'm thinking that some people are already counting their chickens even before the eggs begin to hatch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean to be rude, but I think it's way out there the fact that Chigagoans and their supporters are SO not comfortable with the fact that Obama might not show up... I mean, for a true, good bid, his presence shoudln't be an issue, as the bid would speak for itself, and would need a president to be there and make it's way up... It sound very 'Obama carries that nation on his back' imo.

If Chicago is real good as you guys think, why do you really mind about Obama going to Denmark?

Denis, it is a well known fact that the winning bids are rarely technically the best. Many superb bids have gone down to defeat.

The reason Obama's presence in Copenhagen would be significant is that it would show just how serious the U.S. is about Chicago 2016. This is not a casual, half-hearted American bid. The USOC has been very serious about from the very beginning. Enormous hard work, energy and heart has gone into it.

Of course, this is true of the other bids as well. However, where U.S. bids are concerned, there seems to be a built in prejudice -- an expectation that the Americans don't really care, they're just arrogant and greedy. We have to do more to prove our sincerity. The truth is we DO care. We are passionate about the Games and the Olympic movement.

For me personally, I think Chicago 2016 poses a wonderful opportunity to redefine the United States' attitude to the rest of the world. I am disappointed by some of the ways our nation has behaved recently, by the international goodwill that has been compromised. Obama represents a new era. It is important to have him in Copenhagen to communicate that these Games are not about Americans wanting to hog the limelight -- these Games would be about welcoming and embracing diversity -- celebrating and honoring the rest of the world. At the risk of sounding corny, these Games would truly be about "Letting Friendship Shine."

That's why Obama matters. His presence would not be any kind of "compensation" for weaknesses in the bid. It would emphasize the bid's most fundamental strength.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean to be rude, but I think it's way out there the fact that Chigagoans and their supporters are SO not comfortable with the fact that Obama might not show up... I mean, for a true, good bid, his presence shoudln't be an issue, as the bid would speak for itself, and would need a president to be there and make it's way up... It sound very 'Obama carries that nation on his back' imo.

If Chicago is real good as you guys think, why do you really mind about Obama going to Denmark?

It's surprising how having the heads of state present are considered critically important to Rio (Lula), Tokyo (PM Taro Aso and Hatoyama), and Madrid (the King and Royal Family) - this is mentioned on numerous threads on GamesBids. Yet asking the US head of state to attend is considered a sign of weakness.

Really?

:blink::huh:

If they were banning heads of state a cycle early then they could all focus on domestic priorities and trying to get the world's economies back on track. But that's not the reality this cycle.

CHItown '16

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is getting ridiculous.

I am now hoping that Chicago will win without Obama showing up.

For the last few weeks, the whole election is turning into a popularity contest: at this stage we could as well asking the IOC members to text one for Obama, 2 for Lula and 3 for Juan Carlos, thus avoiding staging a costly bid process and meeting.

It is obvious that Chicago's bid has the full backing of the US government and Obama not showing up in Chicago wouldn't prove otherwise as it is obvious that a health care reform is "slightly" more important for the US than to stage the 2016 Olympics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is obvious that Chicago's bid has the full backing of the US government and Obama not showing up in Chicago wouldn't prove otherwise as it is obvious that a health care reform is "slightly" more important for the US than to stage the 2016 Olympics.

Is it "obvious" though? I mean, when so many people say the 2012 and 2014 victories are attributed to Blair and Putin respecitvely, is it not logical to assume Obama's possible absense could have the opposite effect?

And if Obama's absense didn't matter to the IOC, we wouldn't be talking about the issue so much, would we?

I sincerely hope you're right Pure Facts and I do agree that this is getting ridiculous. I hope this will-he-won't-he business is a silly fuss which won't have a jot of influence on the IOC's thinking, but I'm not sure I can believe that to be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Dennis has made a good point . My question is has any world leader addressing the IOC Membership using a teleprompter ?

Obama is not as good as we think he, Without the 300 pounds of AV equipment on stage he relies on to deliver speeches he tends to stumble as bad as Gerald Ford on an Airplane Stairway LOL.

I think in the case of Guarantees there are some in the IOC that will not understand how the US federal government is committed compared to the other three candidates if the leader of the Nation is not there. Michelle Obama is not really a rep for the federal government . THe problem is that the US has a tricky governing system that Congress or the Senate could turn flat down any emergency monies the President requested if Chicago 2016 needed t. Guarantees from ALL Levels of government is what many in Europe would want . For those Members there is the option in the same hemisphere of Rio with total across the board support from all levels of Government . Rogge can say we are satisfied with the Chicago 2016 commitment but does he speak for the Man From Holland who feels all USOC revenues coming from US TV Rights should go directly to Switzerland . I am sure he has his cronies thinking the same way. IE Carron of PR.

Jim jones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

/\ Phfft.

Well Baron think about it . If the Chicago Bid is so good then why does Obama have to show up according to Chicago Supporters? THe US has the overwhelming economic hand over the IOC should really be enough? Hey it worked for NYC didn't it ?

Chicago should be able to do the games well . I Think some aspects like a temporary stadium can remind the Membership of the Temporary Stadium being put together in East London and the constant dialogue of Bad News Stories the Capital Projects have had there . Does the IOC want to continue that ? Or do you look to Rio where they actually have the main stadium standing today plus many other venues ?

Jim jones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it is all the rage!! Leaders showing up is the color of the season...that's why! It has nothing to do with your argument.

OK, so Rio has its main stadium, etc. BUT their layout is LESS desirable than what Chicago has planned. Remember there are like 40-50,000 people running around madly on any given day for like 10 days...and these people (the athletes, press, workers, etc.) have to be at designated venues at certain times. Experience has shown that being more compact helps in this regard. Far-flung venues like Rio's just complicates the timetable for everyone and will let less people (read PRESS) attend 2 or 3 events within a reasonable timeframe or travel distance. That's why.

The Olympics are a TIGHTLY packed 14 day schedule where you want to get to as many events as you can. Just ask Alain (Chateau Petrus) who buys like 50 or 60 tickets for his Olympics sojourns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Baron think about it . If the Chicago Bid is so good then why does Obama have to show up according to Chicago Supporters? THe US has the overwhelming economic hand over the IOC should really be enough? Hey it worked for NYC didn't it ?

Chicago should be able to do the games well . I Think some aspects like a temporary stadium can remind the Membership of the Temporary Stadium being put together in East London and the constant dialogue of Bad News Stories the Capital Projects have had there . Does the IOC want to continue that ? Or do you look to Rio where they actually have the main stadium standing today plus many other venues ?

Jim jones

JJ -- The US isn't England.

I think Dennis has made a good point . My question is has any world leader addressing the IOC Membership using a teleprompter ?

Obama is not as good as we think he, Without the 300 pounds of AV equipment on stage he relies on to deliver speeches he tends to stumble as bad as Gerald Ford on an Airplane Stairway LOL.

Well at least it's clear now that you're being absolutely ridiculous.

This stuff about Acorn / Teleprompters / etc. - those not in the US may not realize that these are all common attacks of the US right wing / GOP who oppose Obama on just about everything that he does.

obama_teleprompter.jpg

It is not surprising that you've now decided to adopt their talking points (from about a year ago, by the way). But, they're no more true now than they were then. And these are the people with whom you've decided to attach yourself:

brooksbros2_1.jpg

slide_2673_37538_large.jpg

slide_2673_37544_large.jpg

signcomp2.jpg

slide_2673_37536_large.jpg

=> You're only diminishing your own credibility by attaching yourself to people who are far from objective.

CHItown '16

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't know what to think of this great desire from the US Americans here for Obama to be in Denmark. The same way we all don't know what might come out as of Oct 3rd, we all know that all of the bids (except for Tokyo, IMO) have too many good reasons - either emotional or rational ones - to be the chosen. Presidents shouldn't be and I think won't be the reason why IOC members will choose certain city. Come on people, don't y'all think the votes of all members are already decided? Do you think those guys are really pushovers to the level of deciding for Chicago just because Obama showed up? The decision has already been made, y'all! We just don't know it! Everyone has their first and second and third votes in mind, and it won't be a President who will change the ioc members choice on the last minute. Even if the choice of an IOC member is done based on his/hers affection to a certain country , or a certain person in that country, for example, if one guy at ioc would LOVE to have the olympics in Chicago because he has great sympathy for Obama, do you think his presence or abscence will really matter?? He will vote for Chicago anyway!

I honestly don't give a tiny rat's arse to Lula going or not, as I don't think he will add anything in the last minute, even knowing he has a positive figure out there. The roads have been paved over the last 2 years by Rio and other 3 national committees willing to host, and showing the best their cities can provide, and that's the only thing that can convice the ones that don't have their minds made since day one in this dispute - the ones that will vote based on personal links. If someone there likes Lula, or the sights of Rio, or the heat of Brazil, or is a fan o Gisele Bündchen, he or she will vote for Rio no matter what, or do you think he will give up on his passion for the Rio bid, and vote for Madrid for example, because of mere 3 hours in the end of a two year run? I don't think so.

That's how I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody KNOWS that already, denis. But there's always probably about a handful or so IOC members that HAVEN'T made up their minds yet! And those are the members that could/would be persuaded by the final presentations in Copenhagen. And in a tight, tight race like this one, EVERY vote matters! Afterall, both London & Sochi won by ONLY 4 votes, in case you've forgotten or don't know that. Gezz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I Think some aspects like a temporary stadium can remind the Membership of the Temporary Stadium being put together in East London and the constant dialogue of Bad News Stories the Capital Projects have had there . Does the IOC want to continue that ? Or do you look to Rio where they actually have the main stadium standing today plus many other venues ?

You mean the stadium which we've nearly built three years out without any of the worries that plagued Athens?

Actually, I think the IOC would quite enjoy another ride as easy as the one they've had with London. London has been consistently scoring between 9 and 9.75/10 from the annual IOC inspection team sent to the city. I'll trust their opinion over yours thanks all the same; and I suspect voting IOC members will too.

If Chicago's temporary venue plan reminds IOC members of what London is doing, then I think that could probably work to their advantage.

The IOC chose London over Paris (and its existing stadium) despite the decision only being a year after their nearly having a collective heart attack with Athens' preparations. Four years on and the evidence from Beijing and London is that picking hosts with no existing stadium is a risk which is paying off. So 2009, after Beijing and with a smooth run up towards London is, I'd suggest a much more favourable time for a bid with no exisiting stadium to win than 2005 was!

So, interesting speculation, but not something history backs-up. London beat Paris' bid which had an exisiting stadium. Beijing beat out Paris' bid which had an existing stadium. Sochi has a massive amount of construction to do but won despite this. It's not an earth shattering statement to say Chicago's lack of a stadium won't be a big obstacle to their chances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Chicago is probably the city that would mostly benefit from the presence of their national leader in Copenhagen, because of all the questions regarding the government commitment to the bid. I know such problems were solved after the issuance of the evaluation report, but it would be very important to underline that with the presence of representants from all levels of government.

The fact that he's a superstar also helps ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are we talking about ACORN, teleprompters, and other random things that are not really related to the bids?

First, there were talks about how the US' involvement with the Olympic movement is measured by the question of financial guarantees in the Chicago bid, or lack therof. People considered it as a sign of disinterest and unconcern, etc etc. Then we've finally solved the dilemma by eliminating this particular obstacle for Chicago and unanimously declared the city as the ultimate financial backer of the games. So, the question of financial guarantees is now out the window.

Then there was talk about how all heads of states of the bids were coming to Copenhagen, except for Obama and Chicago drew criticisms from both sides of the forum. Now, that the option of going to Copenhagen is getting clearer, people are questioning the need for Obama going to Denmark.

What kind of discussion is this really? Are we all getting desperate to try and dismiss other cities by making up random excuses for the IOC not to vote a particular city? If any of you guys are questioning Chicago's and the US' commitment to the games, please note that we all started this race at the same time(well actually some cities have had the advantage of bidding in the previous race) and we've put the same amount of energy as any other bidding cities. We've done our part, our homework and our own fundraising. We know that we don't deserve the games as much as no other city deserves it too. We've done our fair share to follow the rules and work hard to bring us to where we are right now. But for us to be dismissed as cocky, self-centered, obsessive, or greedy Americans just because we've put forward a spectacular bid, then so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are we talking about ACORN, teleprompters, and other random things that are not really related to the bids?
What kind of discussion is this really? Are we all getting desperate to try and dismiss other cities by making up random excuses for the IOC not to vote a particular city? If any of you guys are questioning Chicago's and the US' commitment to the games, please note that we all started this race at the same time(well actually some cities have had the advantage of bidding in the previous race) and we've put the same amount of energy as any other bidding cities. We've done our part, our homework and our own fundraising. We know that we don't deserve the games as much as no other city deserves it too. We've done our fair share to follow the rules and work hard to bring us to where we are right now. But for us to be dismissed as cocky, self-centered, obsessive, or greedy Americans just because we've put forward a spectacular bid, then so be it.

I don't understand it either.

Besides that, though, why is someone from Nova Scotia, Canada (Jim Jones) repeating year-old U.S. Republican Party attacks and criticizing another country's president?

It's not as though the U.S. groups send their teabaggers to Ottawa to demand that the Canadian government abolish public health insurance, underfund public transit, create record deficits, deregulate financial markets to the point of collapse, invade other countries, and demolish their emergency management capabilities. And disrupt townhalls for local MPs by screaming about "losing the country I grew up in" or carrying guns to a protest. Or, for that matter, question the birth certificate of their Prime Minister.

Canada's Conservative Party already interfered in the 2008 Election (I wrote this first in another thread):

http://www.gamesbids.com/forums/index.php?...st&p=218364

The dominant Canadian party, the Conservative Party, known by some as Canada's Republican Party, won the 2004 election and, according to some reports, even caused a temporary stumble in the US Democratic Presidential Primary (the opponent of the Republic Party holding the U.S. Presidency in 2003):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/us/politics/04nafta.html

According to the writer of the memorandum, Joseph De Mora, a Canadian political and economic affairs consular officer, Professor Goolsbee assured them that Mr. Obama’s protectionist stand on the trail was “more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.”

It also said the professor had assured the Canadians that Mr. Obama’s language “should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.”

Nevertheless, the controversy, which drew fierce attacks from Mrs. Clinton and Senator John McCain, the likely Republican nominee, put Mr. Obama’s campaign on the defensive at a crucial moment. He and Mrs. Clinton are locked in a tight battle for the Ohio primary on Tuesday.

Isn't that enough?

CHItown '16

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama should not go to Copenhagen. Health Care Reform is more important to America. This is also is closest America has ever been to getting universal health care. If the US doesn't get universal health care now they never going to get it. These next couple of weeks are the most important ever for the US in terms of health care reform. The US is going to need Obama at home working on the health care reform bill.

It will look really bad for Obama to go the Copenhagen lobbying for the Olympics games, when the most important health care legislation is US history is at its most critical stages. The Republicans would have a field day and they are already gaining strength.

When Obama was elected president one of his major platforms was health care reform, and his promised to deliver health care reform, if he does not get health care reform this will be a devastating loss for Obama, far greater then the 2016 Olympic bid.

He needs to show he is serious about health care reform and that is why I feel he is not going to show up. Michelle Branch is enough representation given the circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama should not go to Copenhagen. Health Care Reform is more important to America. This is also is closest America has ever been to getting universal health care. If the US doesn't get universal health care now they never going to get it. These next couple of weeks are the most important ever for the US in terms of health care reform. The US is going to need Obama at home working on the health care reform bill.

It will look really bad for Obama to go the Copenhagen lobbying for the Olympics games, when the most important health care legislation is US history is at its most critical stages. The Republicans would have a field day and they are already gaining strength.

When Obama was elected president one of his major platforms was health care reform, and his promised to deliver health care reform, if he does not get health care reform this will be a devastating loss for Obama, far greater then the 2016 Olympic bid.

He needs to show he is serious about health care reform and that is why I feel he is not going to show up. Michelle Obama is enough representation given the circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...