Sure. It is not like the President has anything to do these days like fix the economy, deal with North Korea and Iran, actually work on his strategy for Afghanistan since he apparently doesn't have one (the general is requesting more troops, but Obama wants to wait to work on his strategy), or push his socialized medicine that 56% (only 41% approve) of Americans do not want (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform) instead of pushing for the 2016 Olympics to be in the most corrupt city in the U.S. (Chicago). Please someone point out to me if Bush ever spent our money (taxpayer money) to push for the Olympics to be held in his hometown because I can not find it and please provide your source. Is this not a conflict of interest? For those that could not tell I was being sarcastic when I suggested it was a good idea. The president has enough to do here at home and to support our troops in their mission than pursuing his own personal interests at our expense. He is a millionaire so why not spend some of his own money rather than spending our money when many of us are struggling?

The President is suppossed to sell the country so to speak, but he cares more about ensruing his name is remembered for doing anything than actually running the country. There are important issues he should attend to. I am sure he has a Czar appointed as an Olympic rep already. Send that idiot.

Let's see. How many of our kids are dying daily in Afghanistan, but no hurry to talk with McChrystal. There is ongoing uranium enrichment with new revelations of a second, secret facility accompanied by several missile tests - no biggie. Don't know if anybody lost their job or home in the past year, but not to worry. With the new peace and harmony, there are no plotting terrorists in this country about to blow hell out our transit systems. Evidently, a buncha clowns with their skivvies in a knot over pending health care legislation is not a huge concern of the Executive Branch.

There is a comittee in place to bid on future Olympic venues. There are rules to decide future Olympic venues. There are public procedures for determing the best offer for future Olympic venues. HOWEVER, it needs the immediate attention and physical presence of O-man to save the day. See, the US Olympic Committee obviously can't be trusted to do their job, and/or their hands are tied by established and vetted rules.

Has Obama had daily talks with the General, or the 'money man' or the 'health man' lately? Well, the Washington Post reports Obama talks with presidential counselor Valerie Jarrett "every day" about the Olympics, and a venue that may or may not be any where near the US.
"She likens the project to a political campaign -- and one particular type of contest that Team Obama relished." "It's like a caucus, where we're really looking at every single IOC member and what strategy we should implement to secure their votes," said Jarrett. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/28/AR2009092801150_2.html

Any activity that keeps him out of the White House is fine with me; perhaps he could take Reid and Pelosi with him.

It would seem like a conflict of interest for Obama to use his Presidential power to try to get special favors for his hometown. He is not a Senator anymore, so he is suppossed to look out for the whole country, not just one city in one state. He (and Congress) needs to look at national issues that affect the entire country, not just one region.

No, this is not a good use of any President's time; he has a country to run. Beside, considering the latest news out of Chicago, I doubt the IOC is going to be all that interested.

It is a great idea. One of his responsibilities is to promote the USA to the world. It will make a powerful statement for him to be in Copenhagen. Its not like he is out of the loop for crying out loud.

The President is going to be out of the country for a grand total of 18 hours, including, I assume, at least some sleeping time. Let's say he sleeps 6 hours, although I'd assume it's less. So it's basically one full workday he's out.

I don't know how much money the Olympics would make for Chicago, but I can assume it's quite a bit. Sure the tickets sales wouldn't come in until '16, but I'm guessing the building trades and real estate would benefit greatly, immediately.

So, for the cost of one day away from home, we have the potential for millions upon millions (I'm assuming) of dollars in economic gain. Tell me where the problem is?

I seem to remember George Bush watching the opening ceremonies to the Olympics in Beijing while one of our allies was being invaded. Does anyone think that was a better use of executive time?

I agree with several of the threads here, the President has better things to do to execute the duties of his office.

If we look at it this way, we can see that Obama is just helping himself: He is campaigning that Chicago host the 2016 Olympics. He was elected in 2008. If reelected, his last year will be 2016. He is trying to secure a cushy place in Chicago for when he is out of the White House. How does that help my family in PA, NC, FL, MD, and NY? How does it help anyone but the people of Chicago and the state of Illinois?

Just when we thought there could be no greater distraction than healthcare reform, along comes this. I just wish the guy would start looking more like a commander-in-chief to our military. It’s the least he can do for our troops in the field, and no, parading around the Whitehouse like Luke Skywalker won’t do it!

To be blunt, Chicago is an American city. Therefore, the business of Chicago is the president's concern. Period. Besides, if all the other heads of state of the competing countries went to Copenhagen save for Obama, and the US came up short, the malicious magpies of this site would be calling for his head. So enjoy your trip to Denmark, Mr. President, and good luck to the USA!

@ Was Buf., Now Was.

No one doubts that the trip will be short or bring millions of dollars to Chicago. We just didn't realize that the President is only responsible for helping one community instead of the nation.

I see it as a great opportunity for his kids to see yet another country on the taxpayers dime.

I suppose this is a show of pride in his adopted hometown, but he has far better things to do than promote bringing the Olympics to Chicago or any other American city. And I really don't see how this will help the people of the chosen city, wherever it may be, as the residents will be greatly inconvenienced while the Olympis are in town.

Was Buf., Now Was.: Money before duty and country, huh? Why doesn't he spend a day in his "hometown" to get a real feel for the situation? Millions to Chicago won't help me or many others a bit; and you can bet most of it will go to his old cronies anyway.

It's not just Chicago's bid, its THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'S bid for the Olympics. If Chicago can get the Olympics it will create jobs and boost Chicago's economy in 2016.

Yes, it is a good use of his time. Think of the construction jobs it will generate in the time between now and 2016. Blair did this for London, and Putin did the same for Sochi.

I'm pretty sure he can talk to the "health guy" and the "money guy" in transit. They have phones on Air Force One.

Yes, it is a good use of his time. Think of the construction jobs it will generate in the time between now and 2016. Blair did this for London, and Putin did the same for Sochi.

I'm pretty sure he can talk to the "health guy" and the "money guy" in transit. They have phones on Air Force One.

@ Diogenes

I missed where someone indicated Chicago was not an American city. Who posted that or insinuated it?

I agree with you that the president should follow suit with the other "heads of state". But I also agree with some of the others that since the venue is Chicago, which happens to be Obama’s hometown, it looks like a conflict of interest.

@ VeggieTart

Millions of dollars for a short term economic spike for construction, hotels, and vendors over short term inconvenience. I think most cities would prefer the spike in income.

And how many more of these will it take? Yes, we can find merit with the Olympics in Chicago, etc, etc. But isn't there a mechanism in place? And why Obama saturating the news when there are staffs available to convey intent and carry out policy. He is president, and the constant campaign is getting old fast. Get SOMETHING done before running for the next "crisis" photo op. For more, see the Post's article at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/28/AR2009092802484.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

I, personally, don't see anything wrong with it. Other heads of state are going to be there promoting their country; so, why not ours? I hope he succeeds.

Well, all the revenue the Olympics brings in aside, has anyone ever heard of multi-tasking? He's more than capable of having lunch with the IOC, restoring diplomacy and attending to national affairs at the same time. It's absurd to think the the man needs to be in a bunker 24/7.

One would imagine this have an opportunity to help Chicago's economy?

@ Anonymous (8:42am) re: helping one community

It seems as good a place to start as any? This would help more than one community though. Think about the airline industry for all the visitors to Chicago during and after the Olympics. Think about all the vendors and suppliers. How about television and advertiser dollars. US citizens spending their dollars. Foreign visitors spending their dollars in the US. Etc., etc.

If the nation's figurehead and chief scapegoat wants to go abroad to secure a posh future for himself in Chicago for when he done being President, then so be it. Congress will continue to screw this country whether the President is here or not.

@ Jason Yang

I did not say one profession, I said one coummunity. It helps Chicago and all the jobs in that area, with small spikes for the headquarters of any agency stationed in Chicago. The money will be in Chicago. Good for them and Obama's future home.

Finances
Pro: A “frugal” $4.8 billion plan to stage the Games, including an Olympic Village whose transformation from athlete dormitories to permanent housing is expected to help with costs. The Games would be bankrolled by private donors, and just under half of the planned venues are in existing facilities, touted as a cost-saver.

Con: Chicago has a history of missing deadlines and going over budget with its big projects — including the $480 million Millennium Park, which opened in 2004.

Allen Sanderson, a University of Chicago economics professor, said that while Chicago is making use of its existing facilities, “You’re still building the biggest venues — the village, the stadium, which are not only big-ticket items for Chicago, but for . . . London, too.” The Olympic Village is priced at around $1 billion, while the proposed Olympic Stadium in Washington Park is priced at $397.6 million. London is on track to spend $18 billion for the 2012 Olympics — more than double what it budgeted, Sanderson noted.

Jobs
Pros: Chicago 2016 has been touting that the Games would create 315,000 new job years, or roughly 31,000 jobs over a decade.

Cons: Just what “315,000 job years means” is a stumper. Tom Tresser, spokesman for the group “No Games Chicago,” said the figure doesn’t say whether this is long-term employment or for a single year. And Tresser said he remains concerned that the Olympic organizing committee running things — with City Hall entrenched in the process — will follow the tradition of trading jobs for political favors.

Tourism
Pro: With a projected 4 billion viewers tuning in to the Games and TV cameras panning across Lake Michigan and the dramatic skyline over Grant Park, Chicago could shed its image as a metropolis in flyover country and bump up its tourism numbers.

Con: Just how long Olympic fever can sustain that remains in question.

Legacies
Pros: The IOC’s evaluation team, in a visit here last spring, praised Chicago 2016 for creating a lineup of 31 venues that would leave behind no white elephants — like Beijing’s architecturally stunning but now-empty Bird’s Nest stadium. The city’s plan makes use of 15 existing facilities and calls for building six new venues that would all be scaled back after the games — including the 80,000-seat Olympic Stadium.

Cons: The question remains, then, whether there’s a visual centerpiece that would be left behind. “Maybe the Olympic Village — I don’t know if it’s a grabber or not,” Sanderson said. “Depends on whether people want to walk through an Olympic Village.”

Transportation
Pros: The city and region are expecting, as other American cities have, millions in federal dollars to fix and upgrade the public transit system. That’s important, considering the IOC’s concern that Metra might not be able to handle a spike in demand during the Games.

Cons: Plans for public transit upgrades should be part of a 20-year plan and focus on regional and local needs. The concern, according to Sanderson, is that upgrades would be too tightly focused on July and August 2016 and not for the following years and decades. Also, during the Games, 366 miles of Chicago area roadways, including two lanes in either direction of Lake Shore Drive and single lanes of the Kennedy and Stevenson expressways, would be closed.

He's being criticized for campaining to bring the Olympics to America. He'd be criticized if he didn't try to bring the Olympics to America. Questions like this do nothing but allow the haters to vent. Moving on.

@ Gas on the fire

No one said Chicago isn't an American city, nor did I claim they did. However, several respondents have stated that bringing the Olympics to Chicago would benefit it alone, as if the city operates in a vacuum. This is absurd. Even persons with a rudimentary understanding of economics would recognize this. My post sought simply to highlight this fact. Now, as for your point about a conflict of interest, I think you put it best when you wrote that the venue "happens to be Obama's hometown". The fact is, Chicago began preparing its bid for the Olympics months before Obama became the Democratic nominee (and if not he, then another Illinoian, Hillary Clinton). The confluence of these factors is threfore purely coincidental. In sum, if the bidding cities were Miami, Seattle, San Diego or Boston, I have no doubt the president would be on the plane for Denmark come Thursday.

Actually, yes and no. Yes because, with all the other contenders sending their heads of state to bolster their efforts, he would be almost guaranteeing Chicago's failure if he did not. No, because as President of the U.S. he should have more important things to do (although, given the month he's had, being in Europe, where they still uncritically adore him, may beat the U.S. in his mind). There is a pretty good op-ed in the Post (I know, it surprised me too!) this morning, pointing out that sooner or later Obama will have to realize he's president of all Americans, not the perpetual Democratic candidate, and start acting like it. Likewise, eventually he needs to remember that he's the chief of all 50 states, not a ward politician from Chicago.

No - but I've finally figured Obama out. Economic troubles, heathcare reform, Afghanistan war policy, need to get Olympics...this guy doesn't have excessive confidence in taking care of 5 things at once...he suffers from ADD.

If you are upset about what Obama is doing concernign the olympics it is because you are a racist and hate black people.

Yes, why wouldn't it be? Is the President not allowed to engage in other activities besides bailing out irresponsible people and companies? I’m sure he has spare time in his busy day to pursue initiatives that will improve goodwill and help the local Chicago economy as well.

I hate the olympics. There are more important things to be focused on right now.

Don't be ridiculous, Democrat. I just think that Obama has an awful lot on his plate, and that a bid for an American city to host the 2016 Olympics--which I suspect he would have done anyway no matter which city was selected--is trifling.

Diogenes @ 10:00 said: In sum, if the bidding cities were Miami, Seattle, San Diego or Boston, I have no doubt the president would be on the plane for Denmark come Thursday.
Just like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, our president wants his face to be EVERYWHERE.

I think Blago would be a perfect Chicago Olympic mascot.

What a loaded question. Snark aside though, why shouldn't Obama try to get the Olympics to come to Chicago? Air Force One is as functional an office as the White House. This just goes to show that some people will criticize anything the president does, as we saw with his recent speech to schoolchildren.

The Olympic Games bring HUGE economic gains to the host country in tourism and redevelopment. The Olympic Games bring HUGE social gains to the host country in good will. This is not a hometown issue. This is a home country issue that benefits all Americans.

The President is right to go on the trip, but it looks inappropriate for him to try to bargain for his hometown. Any other city, even in Illinois, would probably draw less criticism.

The Olympic Games in Salt Lake City and Atlanta did not benefit the entire country. They benefited the immediate areas immensely. The only thing it did for the entire nation is enhance the image somewhat.

By promoting Chicago's bid for the Olympics, it will not distract President Obama's from other issues. He is the President of the United States, he is able to mulit-task (which he has shown in the last 8 months). Besides what's a few hours in a day to pitch a bid. It's not like he is going to a remote location, with no human interaction. Besides if he is successfully, it will help the economy.

Most of you are so full of hot air you could heat the entire Washington metro area.

To those of you who say it is no big deal for him to be out of the office for “one day”; I ask if you have any idea how much it costs to send POTUS out of the country for one day?
For him to travel (or any president for that matter) they fly 2 Air Force Ones, at least 2 C-5s (or more) plus all the security and support staff, 2 presidential limos, 1 or 2 Marine One choppers and a tanker carrying all the fuel they will need to go there and back.
The president keeps asking us to limit our carbon footprint; I ask when will he think about limiting his? Why not send a staffer or Mayor Daley to Copenhagen to represent Chicago’s bid?

Let the man do his job. Promoting Chicago for the Olympics will not harm or hinder his other duties. If he is successful this will help the ECONOMY and bring a positive light to the United States of America. I highly doubt not pitching the Chicago bid, will speed up the HealthCare Reform bill and solve the wars.

Hey, Some people have the ability to muli-task and President Obama has proven he is one of those people. I wish him luck. It will be great to have the Olympics come to the States. It will be great for the economy.

The money it draws is reason enough. The work that it provides for the economy, taxes (state and federal)

If anyone really thinks this will be a net gain to the city they are crazy. This will cost the taxpayers millions if not billions. These events never make money...well except for those few that benefit the most...like the politicians.