If any lesson comes from this, it might be that Obama needs to be a bit more selective in whom he throws his weight behind. Maybe he should have helped get an electable alternative into these races, rather than trying to paint lipstick onto a pig.

Looking to next year's elections, the primary for Michael Bennet's Senate seat in Colorado will be interesting. Obama has already endorsed Bennet, despite the fact he has no successful track record (he's never won an election and was the surprise appointment to fill Ken Salazar's seat) and is being opposed by a very popular former state House speaker, Andrew Romanoff. Polls have Bennet losing to the likely Republican challenger and it's hard to argue that Romanoff wouldn't be a stronger candidate. Speculation is that Obama is backing Bennet because he needs him for health care. But is that worth losing a Senate seat in the next election?

You forgot the biggest loser Obama backed: Chicago Olympics.

After Doug Hoffman, if I was a Repub, I wouldn't want Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, et al anywhere near me.

...most Americans supported trying to get them for Chicago. Too bad that some people would rather see them go to another nation as long as it's politically embarassing for the other party...

You are a total asshole. Even Chicagoans were against it, by a 53-47 margin that was crescendoing to a massive rejection when o'balmy paid his political dues to the Chicago democrat machine and risked the prestige of the presidency like the rank amateur he is. his rejection in copenhagen was overwhelming, and he totally misread his impact - like he misreads eveything.

And fuck the olympics - they're total bullshit, and a guaranteed bankruptcy for any city that "hosts" them. you want 'em? YOU pay for 'em. Not to mention that they're boring as hell.

And your comment that most amerikans wanted them "for Chicago" is based on total fantasy. Most amerikans simply did not want them in THEIR city or state. And rightly so.

How we got on the Olympics--which any President would have endorsed for Chicago--I'm not sure. But anyone with any knowledge of Chicago's bid knows it was a total disaster marked by statements from the organizers which were at best uninformed and were at worst outright lies: The Olympics would only cost $3 billion (note that London has spent something like $15 billion and they're not done yet) and would bring in some absurd amount like $20 billion (this in the face of the fact that the Olympics never make money, let alone a return like that).

Re: Sundown

Do you people ever get tired of being wrong because you can't use google?

Los Angeles, 1984

... It emerged after the Games that Los Angeles had made a healthy profit of more than $200m...

<link>

By "you people" you must mean those of us who didn't want Chicago to bankrupt itself on the Olympics. Maybe you should try using Google a bit more thoroughly. Here's details on how LA didn't actually turn a profit. (According to a university study they didn't include any indirect costs; once those are included the profit disappears.)

And your argument is very weak even if you accept the $200 million figure: Chicago's organizers were claiming they'd turn a profit of something like $19 BILLION ($3 billion to put the games on, $22 billion coming in). If you want to buy that bridge, all the power to you.

I don't know if the Olympics would have helped or hurt Chicago, but I knew that, regardless of the result, the trip to Copenhagen would hurt Obama.

Sports is entertainment. Just like Fox News. Obama would be better served by administering to governmental affairs.

(yes, yes, politics is entertainment also but they ought not act like it ;- ))