Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Exactly why did they think it was a given?

I'm curious..... I get why some thought Chicago shouldn't get the games and I get why people thought Obama shouldn't have gone but why did all those shocked people feel it was in the bag? Personally I think a lot of Chicago is run down and gang ridden. Not worthy of the games. Not to mention they nor anyone else needs to be spending the money even the games couldn't recoup.
The media of course and I read an article about how dissapointed people in Chicago were. Reverand Jackson and several other celebrities have stated how shocked they were and wondered aloud why it happened. What do you think they were placing all their hopes on? Obamas speech to them? Something else?

Answer Question

Asked by itsmesteph11 at 1:17 PM on Oct. 2, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

Level 39 (113,405 Credits)
Answers (19)
  • Obama, after all he is the one. How could anyone who has a half a brain turn down Obama? They must be racist for turning down the Holy Trinity. Obama, Michelle and the big O. Oprah.

    Answer by Anonymous at 1:32 PM on Oct. 2, 2009

  • They were the most "games ready" city in the bunch. They had the least construction to do in advance and had a full network of support facilities already in place.

    Less crime - Rio (who won) has a crime problem so bad that parts of the city are actually locked down. They've closed main roads to prevent murders.

    When people say Chicago for the games, they don't mean they'll fit everything right downtown - it means Chicagoland. All the suburbs and even parts of Wisconsin and Indiana. The "host" city is never able to fully contain the games, no matter what country, and Chicagoland is more than clean and adequate enough to cover it. Of the 4 cities, it had the best balance of room to spread out and availability of transportation. They could pull it off without anyone having to travel more than an hour, but that still means going outside the City proper.

    Answer by NotPanicking at 1:33 PM on Oct. 2, 2009

  • You're not racist, anon. You are showing more blasphemy than racism.

    Answer by Anonymous at 1:43 PM on Oct. 2, 2009

  • I think it was just a matter of taking turns.

    The US had the Olympics in 2002, and they usually try to let different countries host and have their turn too.

    I think Brazil has some amazing places and culture, and I'm happy they'll get a chance to share that with the world.


    Answer by mogencreative at 1:52 PM on Oct. 2, 2009

  • The games have NEVER been held in South America. I think that it's good that Rio won. It's time for a South American city to host. I don't understand WHY the President decided to travel all the way to Copenhagen to root for the home team when there are more important, PRESSing matters that need his attention. I hope he paid his own way there too btw. Or maybe Oprah paid for the plane ride and the hotel they stayed in?

    Answer by SterlingLegend at 1:58 PM on Oct. 2, 2009

  • Obama should get used to not getting what he wants.

    Answer by lovinangels at 2:01 PM on Oct. 2, 2009

  • I frankly don't care. I'd rather go to Rio, though, than Chicago.

    Answer by mancosmomma at 2:06 PM on Oct. 2, 2009

  • I think the most people placing their "hope" were those actually from that state/city. I personally have never been to Chicago, so can not speak of how it looks nor what it's like. I have to admit out of all of the cities and states in our country I've been to, and the ones I haven't or may want to visit Chicago, Illinois doesn't even make my list.

    I was born and raised in Midwestern American. I admit some of the great lake states do catch my attention as a possible "neat" state to visit, such as Minnesota, however most of the direct Midwestern states are not that interesting in my opinion.

    Answer by Knightquester at 2:55 PM on Oct. 2, 2009

  • I don't understand why this was such a big deal that our own President had to go and pitch the idea. I would have thought the Hollywood crowd would have done more to attract people, but pulling out the POTUS was going overboard IMO. I don't care that he went, it just seems silly to me. The jobs that it would have created would have been temporary, which some would argue that temp is better than nothing, but when unemployment in that area would have spiked again after the games it would have been more cause for mass panic, much like how the economic downturn and stimulus happened.

    I think we as a nation need to learn how to get back to basics.  Pitch the idea again when we are in a more powerful and better economic atmosphere. 


    Answer by QuinnMae at 3:33 PM on Oct. 2, 2009

  • "but pulling out the POTUS was going overboard IMO."

    But that worked for the Brits. Tony Blair went to the IOC to get the 2012 games. Offhand, I can't recall which other head of state did the same but I do know there was another.

    Heck. If DALLAS had been in contention for 2012, don't you think President Bush would've gone to the IOC?

    Answer by gdiamante at 4:05 PM on Oct. 2, 2009

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.