[Semper Mark]

The City of The Big Shoulders shouldn’t have sent two representatives with broad butts (Shell & Orca), and a little Marxist Quisling with no shoulders.

[Jemian]

... so there's no humiliation in Chicago's failure yesterday to win its bid for the 2016 summer games...

Oh yes there is. ROTFLOL!

[REDWOOD99]

Obama- “I think the IOC desrves the respect of a POTUS visit. Now, here’s Oprah!”

[taxesareforever]

“The Windy City gave a good effort”

If you want to consider making racist comments “a good effort”.

[Anti-Bubba182]

"..Oh, and one more silver lining: This is one decision Mr. Obama can't blame on George W. Bush, though no doubt at MSNBC they will try..."

They already have.

[TomasUSMC]

The last U.S. city to bid for the Summer Games, New York, did scarcely better. It was ousted in the second round in the 2005 vote that gave the 2012 Games to London.

Close to half of the IOC’s 106 members are Europeans.

Chicago got just 18 votes in the first round, with Tokyo squeezing into the second round with 22. Madrid was leading after the first round with 28 votes, while Rio had 26.

So Bush got US to the 2nd Round
obambi got US last place INSTANTLY.

[musicman]

From the article:

" In that sense, the Olympic defeat is a relatively painless reminder that interests trump charm or likability in world affairs. Better to relearn this lesson in a fight over a sporting event than over nuclear missiles."

"Oh, and one more silver lining: This is one decision Mr. Obama can't blame on George W. Bush, though no doubt at MSNBC they will try."

[Psycho_Bunny]

"so there's no humiliation in Chicago's failure yesterday "

heheh....Actually, it's pretty humiliating.

[Seaplaner]

If Mr. Obama and the White House made a mistake, it was in their apparently boundless faith that somehow Mr. Obama's personal popularity would carry the day.

Written another way, Marxist Obama is the very model of the modern malignant narcissist

.

[nathanbedford]

This editorial misses the point. First, the editorial purpose in rushing to the defense of Mr. Obama who has been humiliated by the fiasco in Copenhagen is inexplicable. Why is the Wall Street Journal defending the president in such a matter? Is not the New York Times well enough equipped to take care of that chore? Why did the Wall Street Journal resorts to such unpersuasive arguments?

Second, the editorial says it will not participate in the "pounding" the president is receiving from his critics for, "somehow shirked the pressing issues," thus trivializing the objections as mere cavils that the president has wasted 24 hours when he should be working on healthcare or taking cognizance of the "dismal September jobs report." It is not the time devoted to Copenhagen (we are aware of the communication capacities of Air Force One); it is the diversion of the national attention from the economic calamity which has befallen us. It is the elevation of style over substance, the substitution of bread and circuses for responsible governance.

Third, the editorial distorts the criticism of the president for squandering prestige of the White House in a quixotic effort. Any fledgling Foreign Service officer knows the president does not put his prestige at risk, the president of the United States of America comes for a photo op to seal the deal. The editorial misses the point when it dismisses the criticism as follows:

... investing the prestige of his office in getting the games, as no President has before, but then Mr. Obama is more closely identified with Chicago than other Presidents have been with other bidding cities.

The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal should be grown up enough to know that it is no justification for a president wantonly to squander the reputation and prestige of his office because the given cause has biographical significance to him. The question is, does the cause itself have significant interest to the nation?

That question is the proper focus of an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. About half the people in Chicago who oppose the welcoming the Olympics to their own city. They oppose it because of the outrageous corruption and their government with which Barack Obama has been so intimately associated. That is the proper subject for an editorial in the nation's leading newspaper of finance and news. But the editorial could find not a word to spare on this subject.

Which brings us back to our initial question, why is the Wall Street Journal carrying water for the president?

[WKUHilltopper]

Maybe Zero can reimburse the taxpayers for he and his wife’s little junket—not to mention the carbon imprint these fools left.

[JohnQ1]

Sheesh! Come on, WSJ, “I I I me me me” made the Obama presentations pathetic.

[ransomnote]

I don’t get it. He has neither charm nor likability. It’s not like these are his ‘secret weapons’ In a battle of wits and leadership....he went unarmed.

I have read today that he has been nicknamed ‘No Drama, Obama’ for his famously even temperament’. I can’t imagine who gave him that name other than, perhaps, the writer of the article I was reading. But he is a thin skinned drama queen - it’s all about him. He has snapped at reporters who dare interrupt him while eating a waffle, snarled, turned on his heel, glared etc over minor issues, virtually burped the phrase “I won” when statesmanship was called for, called a reporter ‘sweetie’, sneered at those who are ‘wee weed up’ when he was annoyed - I never saw Bush carry on the way ‘sensitive way’ that Obama does but NO ONE gave Bush a nickname lauding his even temperament.

I have again read of his usual soaring rhetoric...again...I got nothin’. His rhetoric is fuzzy and soft focus and dreamy and promises the impossible - by that isn’t soaring rhetoric - it’s empty promises not even delivered well or persuasively. But Reagan delivered soaring rhetoric when eulogizing the astronauts who died with a well delivered quote about “slipping the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God”.And journalists do not pepper articles about the Reagan administration with comments about his soaring rhetoric.
I remember the day I read a post that suggested that a famous actress (Julia Roberts) must have had a clause written into her contract that would require every movie she was in to imply, in at least one scene, that she was a head turning ‘stunner’ of a beautiful woman. The writer gave a few examples - the one I remember was Matt Damon (Ocean’s 11) getting all misty eyed waiting for the ‘best part of his day’ which was the moment he ‘got’ to watch Julia Roberts arrive- walking down a flight of stairs. The ‘moment’ arrived and we are ‘treated’ to a swan like entrance of a head turning stunner. The author pointed out - she isn’t a memorable head turning stunner. At first I thought he was wrong but I began to see his point - she is famous and pretty but there seems to be a formal effort to train the public to think that all activity stops whenever this unbelievably beautiful woman walks into the room (in Hollywood? In Casinos? On planet earth) - it’s a fabricated legend and it is possibly specified in her contract in order for the legend building effort to stay on message throughout her career.
And now I am watching the same technique - the ‘training’ of people to consider him charming - even his critics - when in fact he isn’t. He isn’t a great orator, he isn’t a policy wonk, he isn’t even tempered but even his critics, at times, say “well he can do soaring rhetoric but...” or “he can be persuasive but...” To which I say - he can’t.do.anything.people.say.he.can. Except pose. He CAN do that. He can pose. Like Barbie.

[djf]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKEDD1i4oGk

[gargoyle]

...Should have sent David Letterman or Bill clinton instead of Winfrey, then it wouldn't have been such a big joke...

...”hey guys, you could have access to lot's of interns”...

[mosaicwolf]

I never would have imagined that I would consider a defeat for the USA as a great day for America and a great day for me personally.

[hoagy62]

Now...here’s a question that’s come to mind.

On Rush Limbaugh’s show, he has surmised that the ONLY reason Obama went to Copenhagen is that Mayor Daley (aka ‘Kingpin of the Chicago Crime Syndicate’) had dirt on Obama and held it over his head to get him to “get the Olympics”.

Since Obama has now failed miserably to bring Daley his Olympics...do you supposed the “dirt” will be made public as punishment?

It’s an interesting thought...especially since a LOT of people would love to use said ‘dirt’ to bring him down.

Thoughts?

[2harddrive]

I am sure Rio deserved to win, yet I am also convinced that much of the “No” vote on Chicago was pure anti-Americanism.
HOWEVER, with Chicago’s handgun ban, no shooting athlete would have been ALLOWED to compete, or even posess his handgun, in Chi-town! Maybe they would have done that in Michigan?