With regard to the Olympics, I think people saw it as South America's (Brazil's) "turn" so long as the bid was competitive enough to be reasonable. With the discovery of two huge new oil fields, Brazil will be swimming in even more money over the next ten years. I worry about transportation infrastructure there given that many of the roads choke through tunnels, but all the other tourist infrastructure is there. And it will be a specatcular setting.

Chicago was never the frontrunner (only in they eyes of the Obama-blinded media). I don't think he and Michelle's pitch for Chicago meant anything either way. I do agree with some conservative pundits who suggest that his last minute grovel demeaned the office. Just because the trend has been toward executive office pleas doesn't mean such is in any way a good idea.

The problem with selling Chicago as a site (rather than selling themselves) is that Chicago doesn't really have much to offer beyond a pretty nice Michigan Avenue. The weather can be beastly in Ausust or September. The airport is an absolute mess, one of the worst in the country. The city itself is in decline, having been passed by Houston as the third largest in the country. And the corruption is legendary. Further, their bid included temporary stadiums that were to be deconstructed after the games. The Olympic leaders like to tout how their infrastructure leaves lasting value on places, and this likely would not have been the case for Chicago.

I know this is a little off-topic, but it addresses one of Marc's issues raised in his reply.