For Obama, losing bid means wearing defeat

His Olympic gamble for Chicago is fodder for his critics.

By PETER BAKER and JEFF ZELENY, New York Times

Last update: October 2, 2009 - 10:38 PM

President Obama not only failed to bring home the gold, he could not even muster the silver or bronze.

A 20-hour mission across the Atlantic Ocean to persuade the International Olympic Committee to give the Summer Games of 2016 to Chicago ended with the president's adopted hometown finishing fourth of four candidate cities.

Although Chicago might have lost to Rio de Janeiro for reasons that had little to do with Obama, the fact that he made himself the face of its bid invariably meant that its defeat would be taken as a stinging rejection of its favorite son.

Losing out on the Olympics, of course, is not the sort of war-and-peace issue that defines a presidency, and the embarrassment will presumably fade in a news cycle or two. But it provides fodder for critics who are using it as a metaphor for a president who, in their view, focuses on the wrong priorities and overestimates his capacity to persuade the world to follow his lead.

Obama portrayed the defeat as if it were little more than a lost game of pickup basketball.

Republicans excoriated Obama's decision to go in the first place, even sending out an e-mail statement while he was addressing the committee in Copenhagen with the subject line "Wrong Priorities."

Some IOC members said the vote was not a rejection of Obama, who brought the First Lady and Oprah Winfrey. Some said the rejection was directed at the U.S. Olympic Committee, which has had disputes with the IOC over revenue sharing and broadcasting rights.

Richard W. Pound, a committee member from Canada, said the other cities wanted to knock Chicago out early because they thought it would have been more difficult to do so in the later rounds.

French IOC member Guy Drut said "an excess of security" for the Obamas unsettled some of his colleagues. He said, "This morning the city was closed because of Barack Obama."

In Chicago, the disappointment was deep but not aimed at the president. Resident Barry Bowlus said that at least Obama had tried. Had he not gone at all, Bowlus said, "There would have been a lot more heck for him to pay around here."

Obama's decision to become the first U.S. president to lobby the Olympic committee in person, just two weeks after saying he was too busy with health care legislation, was a gamble. It was predicated on the theory that Obama's star power overseas -- "the best brand in the world," as his advisers have put it -- was enough to make the difference.

Given that Obama flew overnight and made his presentation about 3 a.m. Washington time, press secretary Robert Gibbs said it consumed few regular work hours that would have gone to other priorities. "The biggest loss of anything on this trip was sleep," he said.

How much it cost taxpayers for Obama to make the trip was uncertain. But it probably cost $1 million or more, according to recent Pentagon estimates.

Still David Axelrod, a senior adviser, defended the trip. He said, "I don't view this as a repudiation of the president and the First Lady. He would do it again if he had the opportunity."

The Washington Post and Associated Press contributed to this report.

Recent Politically Connected stories

State has plan to borrow up to $600 million, just in case - October 2, 2009

State has plan to borrow up to $600 million, just in case - That's on top of a plan to borrow hundreds of millions from schools. But official is "fairly positive" short-term borrowing won't be necessary. More