'It may have only been the Olympics but Obama's high-profile failure to win the games for Chicago has raised serious questions about his perceived international star power.'
'If Obama can't sway Olympic officials, how can he wring concessions from Iran on its nuclear program, secure crucial support from allies to overhaul two wars or rebuild the U.S. image in the Middle East?'
If there is one kind of argumentation which is guarunteed to get on my nerves, it is this one. Talk about cockamamie. Failure to win the Olympics is virtually nothing. It means virtually nothing. Hell, winning the dubious right to run the Olympics is virtually nothing. Its impact on the Obama brand? Virtually nothing. Its impact on Obamas potential to win over the Iranians or North Koreans? Absolutely nothing.
The fact that within half an hour I have heard this garbage from two separate right wing sources disturbs me not a little. Are you people serious? More pertinently, have you been reading the "Bumper Book of Democratic Argumentation" and taking notes? I can't hear people making a totally specious argument like this and take them seriously in the future.
There is plenty to worry about and critique with the Obama administration. You don't need this crap. There are plenty of genuine missteps and confusions in Obamas approach to his job. I thought it was a mistake for him to go mob handed to Copenhagen, but only from the perspective that he has the single most important job in the world, and he needs to take that seriously. But the success or failure of this trivial task? Who gives a flying fornication? Its trivial. Thats the whole point. He could have succeeded with aplomb and panache, and it would still be trivial. It wouldn't have polished his credentials, or made him much likelier to succeed in negotiations with the Iranians.
Well, unless I've totally misread the Iranians, and they are completely obsessed with Olympic locations and venues. If so, they are keeping that very quiet.