There was talk in Guatemala City at the IOC Session this past summer about the visits of the various heads of state who were in town to lobby for their Olympic bids. Besides the security and logistical nighmares, some pundits were going so far as to say that those actual visits put bid cities at a disadvantage versus those bids who didn't have a high-level visit.
I would say it's more like interference which we clearly saw this week with President Bush's visit to the Chicago folks.
That didn't impress me one bit. In fact, I think it puts them at a clear disadvantage. I see it every year, so-and-so gets a visit, which puts x city out in front or the one to beat but when it comes down to the actual vote, it's more like a flameout.
I'm not one of these people who's going to ohh and ahh over a presidential visit. Big deal. It won't win the US the Olympic Games and with the US's world stance and position right now in terms of how other countries view us, we will be clearly at a disadvantage for years to come. If you look at the makeup of the IOC voters, it is clearly not in our favor. Look at how NYC flamed out to a 4th place finish. I could see that coming from a mile away.
Clearly the US bid has an image problem which mirrors the US image problem overseas. Translate that to IOC votes and you get my point.
Besides, you just can't demand respect. It HAS to be earned-and just because the President shows up doesn't mean he gets a free pass.
And that is something the US doesn't have now---and it would behoove the Chicago folks to not pull any more stunts like this before they get into a hole they won't be able to dig themselves out of.
But it may be too late.
Chicago: first one out of the final vote. I stand on it.
