Jay Cost writes at Real Clear Politics on Obama, Chicago's demise and the Olympics, and makes an excellent point.
Chicago has lost its Olympics bid, despite Obama's insertion into the process. People are shocked because they figured that Obama would fly in if and only if the deal was done.
But why? That assumes a typical allocation of the presidential prestige. President Obama has been anything but typical in the use of that asset. [...] This is the President who never hesitates to inject himself into the public consciousness for any little reason he likes.
This is the permanent campiagn. We have talked about its imminence for years. Well, now it's here and this is what it looks like. This is what a President does in it. Previous Presidents would only put themselves out there in this kind of diplomatic situation if there was no more campaigning, lobbying, and cajoling to be done. But this President sees himself above all as the chief campaigner, lobbyist, and cajoler.
Mr. Obama is convinced that his own personal magnetism and the force of his aura are really enough to convince followers to, well, follow. It's been his approach to health care, where in repeated speeches he's repeated the same talking points, and outlined the same plan, despite doubts about both his veracity and the wisdom of the path chosen. Why? Because he believes that ultimately it will be believed and enacted simply because he says it is so. For a man who is expert in so little to believe that the force of his utterances should carry such weight is the pinnacle of narcissism. That he knows not is not the problem. That he knows not, but knows not that he knows not is. Of course it's a permanent campaign, because that's what he knows.
As for the rest of the nonsense being written, well, let's just say that I think Rio was an excellent, and appropriate choice for the Olympics, the first South American city to receive the honor. It was probably appropriate for Mrs. Obama and Oprah to travel and make a plea for the Obama's home city, though it certainly wasn't a "sacrifice." It was neither necessary nor appropriate for the president himself to do so. And there is a difference between wanting the president to fail in something important - like a war - and being amused by, not rooting for, a failure in a silly and excessive use of presidential authority. Chicago will survive, probably better off with less graft and less scrambling for government cash among the corruptocracy there.
10/4/09 1150: And I couldn't agree more with Ann Althouse, having read the speeches, that terrible presentations cannot and should not inspire an organization such as the IOC. And these were terrible, self-serving, self-absorbed paeans to their own ascendancy.
