Good point. To me it felt like Chicago politicians trying to “offer a deal the IOC could not refuse”. Having a head of state go to the IOC came across as threatening and reeked of imperialism and snobbish elitism. The same type of attitude that Obama has been apologizing for for the past 8 months.
No matter what result Chicago got, Obama was going to hurt Euro-American relations.
For the record, no South American nation has ever hosted any Olympics. North America has hosted 12 total, 6 summer; USA 4, Mexico and Canada each one.
Some are talking about how dangerous Chicago is, but Rio de Janeiro is has 4 times more murders than Chicago. I don’t think violence is an issue. An event such as the olympics would definitely create employment and benefit both small and big businesses. I’ve seen it happen in SLC 2002.
“In 2006, 2,273 people were murdered in the city giving it a murder rate of 37.7 cases for every 100,000 people.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_de_Janeiro#Crime
“In 2008, murders rebounded to 510 to lead the country, breaking 500 for the first time since 2003.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Chicago#Crime
I think a major obstacle which stands in the way of hosting the World Olympics is requirements for foreign visitors. Finger prints, photographs, registration are some requirements if you live in certain countries. This is all because of policies put in place by the Bush Administration. Extreme security and requirements are not inviting to the rest of the world.
if there's anything that would put the IOC under scrutiny it would be chosing Chicago and even more so after the Oprama's lame presentation.