Down To Two? IOC Facing Tough Decision Between Rio, Chicago

The IOC's "biggest decision in choosing the city to host the 2016 Games is what statement it wants to send the world," according to Nancy Armour of the AP. Madrid and Tokyo "both seem to have faded, done in largely by geography," so does the IOC make the "bold, transformational choice of Rio de Janeiro, giving the Olympics to South America for the first time?" Or does it "play it safe and head for the familiar shores of the United States and, perhaps, a more lucrative games?" IOC members acknowledge that there is "large appeal in going somewhere new," making Rio de Janeiro a "slight favorite over Chicago ahead of Friday's vote." Rio de Janeiro Mayor Eduardo Paes yesterday said, "The Olympic movement is a global movement, so it has to be global. It has to go to all the continents, all the countries, all the areas of the world. We're pretty emotional here at this moment because we know it's a very important moment for a city that has a lot to give. It's going to change forever the Olympic movement." But Armour noted Rio's bid is "not without its drawbacks." The city's homicide rate is "well above Chicago, Madrid or Tokyo," and Rio de Janeiro also "has to convince the IOC that it can pay for $11[B] worth of infrastructure projects and complete them on time -- on top of staging the World Cup just two years earlier." Chicago might lack "international flair," but its location in the U.S. makes it the "ultimate security blanket for the IOC." L.A., Atlanta and Salt Lake City "all staged successful games that made money," and a Chicago Games would be an "attractive property for American advertisers and broadcasters" (AP, 9/29).

FOUR CORNERS: The London TELEGRAPH examines all four bid cities and their odds of landing the '16 Games, led by Chicago with "8/10" chance. With "stars of the political stage" in President Obama and his wife Michelle attending the presentation to the IOC this week, "alongside stars of the small screen in Oprah Winfrey, Chicago's bid has the necessary firepower to win the bid." Rio de Janeiro has a "7/10" chance of securing the Games. Pele is also in Copenhagen for the IOC presentation, and his "persuasive demeanour and universal popularity should ensure that Rio takes Chicago right down to the wire." While the final vote "will be close," Obama's decision to attend the IOC summit in Copenhagen "could prove telling." Meanwhile, Tokyo makes a "compelling case for the 2016 Games given the emphasis placed on its green credentials, but a lack of world-renowned personality in their camp could hamper the bid." The Telegraph offers Tokyo a "6/10" chance, while giving Madrid just a "4/10" likelihood of winning the bid. Given that the '12 Games are in London and the '14 Games will take place in Sochi, it "seems unlikely that the IOC will choose" another European location (London TELEGRAPH, 9/30). The WALL STREET JOURNAL also offers a look at the four cities.

Majority Of 181 Respondents Feel Obama's Presence Will Help Chicago Win '16 Games Bid

LIMITED IMPACT? IOC member Carlos Nuzman, who is leading Rio de Janeiro's bid, yesterday said Obama attending Chicago's bid presentation "changes absolutely nothing" about the vote. Rio Gov. Sergio Cabral added, "Honestly, I don't really understand what could change or what could happen." Chicago 2016 Chair Pat Ryan noted that Obama will be in Copenhagen "so briefly -- arriving just before Chicago's final presentation to the IOC on Friday morning and departing shortly thereafter -- that he won't have time for one-on-ones" with IOC members. Ryan said of Obama's potential effect, "We don't know. He doesn't know. Nobody knows. The voters will determine that" (USA TODAY, 9/30). GOP Chair Michael Steele yesterday said that Obama's trip is "not essential business for the president." Steele conceded it is a "noble idea for the president to pitch his home city." But he added, "At a time of war ... this trip, while nice, is not necessary" (Baltimore SUN, 9/30). THE DAILY ran a non-scientific poll from Monday afternoon to this morning asking readers whether they believed Obama's appearance in Copenhagen result in Chicago winning the Games. Of the 181 respondents, 54% believe the President will help Chicago win the bid.

PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY: In London, Paul Kelso writes Obama will "make an impact, even if he will only be on Danish soil long enough to deliver a speech and take questions from the members." His decision to be the first sitting U.S. President to address the IOC is a "huge honour to the Olympic movement, but an even bigger boost to Chicago." The city has endured a "troubled campaign, turning what should have been a favourite's run into a struggle dogged by rows over public support, financial guarantees and resentment at the role of the over-mighty" USOC (London TELEGRAPH, 9/30). Several Tribune Co. reporters debated Obama's decision to travel to Copenhagen, and the L.A. Times' Helene Elliott wrote, "The sight of President Obama, arguably the most powerful political leader in the world, lobbying for the 2016 Games to be awarded to Chicago will have a persuasive effect on those who will vote Friday." The Olympics "still draw us together to marvel at the potential of what we can achieve and the nobility of making that effort," and bringing the Games to Chicago is "worthy of a day of Obama's time." But the Hartford Courant's Paul Doyle wrote, "Shouldn't Chicago’s 2016 Olympic bid be low on the list of Oval Office priorities? ... We’re not sure Leader of the Free World needs to supplement the pitch, especially since his trip adds the perception that he’s taking his eyes off some more important balls" (LATIMES.com, 9/29). Washington Post columnist John Feinstein: "He’ll be gone for 24 hours. The last I looked, Air Force One is equipped with telephones. I think it’s a great thing for him to stand up and say we want to host the Olympics" ("Washington Post Live," CSN Mid-Atlantic, 9/29).

THE DALEY SHOW: The WALL STREET JOURNAL's Douglas Belkin in a front-page piece examines the effect of the outcome of Friday's vote on Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, who has won six straight elections but "now has a career-low approval rating of 35%." The city is "skeptical of Mr. Daley's Olympic push." Daley since the outset of his plan to land the Games denied that local taxpayers could "wind up paying if the Olympics lost money," vowing that funding would "come from sponsors and private sources." However, some Chicago residents were "skeptical that their neighborhoods would benefit." Daley in June went to Switzerland to lobby the IOC, and the "man who once insisted the Games wouldn't cost Chicago anything now said it would guarantee any shortfalls." Daley upon his return "tried to lift his city's fading enthusiasm" for the Games, "sending committee members across the city to talk up the benefits." But those meetings "quickly turned ugly," and ahead of Friday's vote "Chicagoans have abandoned their first citizen just when Mr. Daley needs them the most" (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 9/30).

NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH: Chicago 2016 yesterday released a poll showing that 72% of Chicago-area residents support the city hosting the '16 Games, which contrasts a recent Tribune/WGN poll indicating that only 47% favored the bid. The Chicago 2016 poll, conducted by Zogby Int'l, surveyed 701 residents (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 9/30). Ryan said, "We are gratified by these results and believe this poll reflects the excitement and enthusiasm people have for bringing the games to Chicago" (CHICAGOBUSINESS.com, 9/29). ESPNCHICAGO.com's Jon Greenberg wrote under the header, "Chicago Doesn't Need Games." Obama's trip to Copenhagen is "very bad news for the anti-Olympics folks in Chicago, the ones who don't want their city to be encumbered by orange cones for years leading up to the 2016 Games, so we can have two weeks' worth of judo, kayaking and steeplechase" (ESPNCHICAGO.com, 9/29).