Politico's Kenneth Vogel reports that the Obama administration is making a rather explicit lobbying effort for the 2016 Summer Olympics, which will either be held in Tokyo, Madrid, Rio De Janeiro or Obama's home city of Chicago. Since the four cities appear to be very close on the technical merits, this lobbying could make a significant amount of difference to Chicago's chances.
On the three of the four previous occasions when the Summer Olympics were held in the United States, the incumbent President won re-election by a landslide margin. On the other hand, Herbert Hoover got crushed in his re-election bid in 1932 against Franklin D. Roosevelt, when the Olympics were held in Los Angeles.
Making the major assumption that Obama will win re-election in 2012, it's easy to see how a domestic Olympic Games could create nightmares for the GOP in their efforts to win back the White House in 2016. The Olympics are intrinsically a feel-good, patriotic event. The symbolism of Obama, in an Olympic Stadium built just blocks away from his home (see map below), bringing the world to together and passing the literal and figurative torch to Hillary Clinton or whomever the Democratic nominee might be in 2016 would be extremely powerful, worth tens of millions of dollars in free advertising impressions at a critical phase in the campaign.
View Larger Map
Note: The original version of this article contained a stupid mistake.
5.12.2009
Why Obama Wants the Olympics
@ 3:57 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
60 comments
zomg. 1st
In 1932, the incumbent (Hoover) lost to FDR.
Hoover was president in 1932, and FDR won his landslide later that year, which seems to refute the entire theory.
Oh, come on. Popularly-elected incumbent presidents are usually re-elected no matter what -- it takes a nasty economy or an unpopular war or a major scandal to unseat one, and even that isn't a sure thing. Looking for a correlation with Olympic hosting is really a stretch. Slow day?
what about salt lake city?
So if the Summer Olympics had been in Texas last summer, John McCain would have received a huge boost in his presidential bid? I don't know if I buy that.
It's good to get the games, and it could certainly be spun as "improving our standing in the world"/"stimulus spending"/etc, but I don't know that it would have THAT much of an effect, particularly as Obama himself won't be up for re-election.
U-S-A! U-S-A!
If we get the Olympics, I'd like them to be held here in New Orleans. If there is anything that would motivate Bobby Jindal and whoever gets elected after Nagin leaves town to fix this place up, it'd be the prospect of getting that much tourism flooding into the city. Nagin dragged his feet and Jindal resisted federal help (the stimulus), but I tell you, the prospect of the Olympics coming to town would make both the Mayor and the Gov quite anxious to make the place look nice for the coming guests.
I don't know who Obama's successor will be, but there's no way it's going to be the 68 year old Hillary Clinton. She's got (a) loser stigma, (b) a connection to an unwanted past, (c) her portion of the democratic electorate is getting smaller, (d) she was exposed as being not a very talented politician in 2008. Admittedly, the Al Gore rule is that Nobel Peace Prizes negate loser stigma, but short of that - hell, even with that - she's not getting close to the white house again.
Hillary looks pretty damn old now, she's going to look downright HAGGARD eight years from now. I doubt she will run.
Yes, Hoover lost in a landslide which goes against the other elections. But, Hoover was in the midst of some rather unusual circumstances.
Yes, a popular president is almost always reelected. But, the trick is to be popular when Election Day actually comes around. George H.W. Bush was a very popular president until a few months before the election. The question is whether it was just a bit of a bump due to an economic downturn or a permanent slide in his popularity. If it was just a bump, the election might have been quite different if held a few months later.
That summer good feeling that the Olympics generate could remain a few months after the Olympics until say November. If that's the case, it certainly wouldn't hurt Obama's chances at reelection.
However, the Olympics certainly can't work miracles. If the economy dives into a deep recession or depression, and people blame Obama, the Olympics, there's not much the Olympics could do to help.
Interestingly, the '84 and '96 games were actually awarded to U.S. cities during presidencies of the party that supposedly suffered when the games were played (Carter and Bush the First, respectively). Although I don't know the level of federal involvement in an Olympic host bid.
Obama enhances Chicago's bid now, and a successful bid would help Obama immensely during his first term. That's why he's getting involved now, not for some hypothetical boost it might provide to his Democratic successor in 2016.
Salt Lake City was winter, and Nate specifically mentioned summer games.
Anyway, compared to other factors affecting the re-election bids of T. Roosevelt, Hoover, Reagan, and Clinton, I doubt an Olympic effect rises above the noise. That chart proves nothing and doesn't even suggest much. Weak.
The argument that the Olympics could represent a torch-passing moment between Obama and some other Democratic nominee, and that the symbolism is strengthened by proximity to his home, has nothing to do with the re-election performance of past presidents anyway. Weak.
The torch-passing argument is a lot stronger than the historical data, so why even present the latter?
The Olympic Games are also weak. When the inevitable cost overruns happen money will be taken from taxpayers and public causes that need it, and put straight in the pockets of big contractors, for the amusement of the exclusive class that can afford to enjoy the games. What was the last city that made good on its plan? What was the last Olympics that benefitted its host city instead of bankrupting it? Every city should reject the Olympics until it changes its ways.
Governor Ratings PLEASE!!!ESPECIALLY VIRGINIA!!!!
In the 20th Century there were 25 elections.
Only four of those 25 involved an incumbent President losing a re-election bid. These were Taft (1912), Hoover (1932), Carter (1980) and Bush I (1992).
Another way of looking at it is that there were 16 election cycles, out of those 25, in which an incumbent President was seeking another term. 4 of those involved a loss by the incumbent President.
4 out of 16 is 25%, which is exactly the same as your Olympic ratio. This shows that the Olympics likely doesn't have an effect.
For reference: The elections were the following years:
1904 - Roosevelt
1912 - Taft
1916 - Wilson
1920 - Coolidge
1932 - Hoover
1936 - Roosevelt
1940 - Roosevelt
1944 - Roosevelt
1948 - Truman
1956 - Eisenhower
1964 - Johnson
1972 - Nixon
1976 - Ford
1984 - Reagan
1992 - Bush
1996 - Clinton
If Chicago gets to host the 2016 Olympics, Obama will become a living legend. Other than that, it would also be huge source of pride if his homestate got to host. Do I personally want to see America host another Olympic Games 20 years (Fuck me, will it be that long?) after Atlanta? I guess. Though looking at the list of potential hosts, Rio De Janeiro should be considered the favorite. Who knows?
Tony Blair campaigned heavily for London to host the 2012 Olympics, and it obviously paid off. So it's entirely appropriate for Obama to be doing the same.
BTW, Governor Schweitzer has to be considered the favorite to succeed President Obama. I can't see anyone other than Hillary stopping him. That is, if he has ambitions of running for president. It'll be interesting to see if he's the keynoter in 2012.
What an incredibly ridiculous theory! You attribute thoughts to President Obama that probably have never entered his mind. Any desire to land the 2016 Olympics is simply for the economic benefits it might produce (which is actually kind of questionable) and a reward to Chicago Mayor Daley.
But to suggest he's lobbying to boost the Democrats' chances of retaining the White House in 2016 just has no basis in reality. Pure speculation, not worthy of this site. That's the kind of baseless speculation that Fox News comes up with.
Way to few data points for this.
It would be better to look at all olympic events and see if it helps maintain the current regime in host countries. (I guess we should only look at functioning democracies, but a more detailed analysis might be able to factor in dictatorships)
"Why Obama Wants the Olympics"
Do we really need an analysis of why a politician would want the Olympics in his hometown?
What's next? Why men like blowjobs?
It would be foolish not to campaign for America getting the games. The talk of money and potential losses are greatly exaggerated, if we could generate a tremendous amount of international goodwill by investing ~80 billion (~0.4% of the economy in 2016), and expect to recoup at least half of that investment from international business... that would be considered an extraordinary opportunity, and it would be jumped on by any administration.
Obama would be lobbying just as hard if one of the cities for 2016 was Houston, or any other major red city (granted there are few of them), and he would lobby just as hard if he KNEW that he was going to be defeated (fat chance) in 2012...
Any president would want the games. It's just too good of an opportunity/investment.
Based on a few of the comments in this thread regarding Hilary, I've got an interesting question to research?
When faced with the choice, will the electorate have a double standard? Will a female candidate be judged by how old she is, while a male candidate be judged by how young he is?
Money?
I love you, Nate, but with four data points and no control for other variables you haven't even established a correlation, much less causation. More importantly, you have not even approached establishing that this is Obama's motivation.
Does Obama want an Olympic games in his home town during his presidency as part of his legacy? Sure. Is it part of some grand scheme to boost his anointed successor's electoral prospects? Doubtful.
Dan_L: Like any President, Obama thinks about how it will affect the elections when he chooses which shoe to put on first; of course he'll have considered it here.
Um, OK. I just don't see this as a very interesting analysis. You are trying to draw a relationship between the Olympics being held in the US and the ability of the sitting Pres to get re-elected?
There's a huge debate going on about Healthcare right now. It would be great to see some discussion on that topic from Nate's unique point of view.
FWIW, Intrade has Chicago (well, "North America" as they break it down by continent) at 57%.
Nate, there's still a stupid mistake - you have "bringing the world to together."
Jared86, I'm pretty sure Ford didn't win either. Granted he was never elected, but he was running as an incumbent.
Can we also see the stats comparing rising Tequila drinking (as opposed to Vodka) as a correlator for Democratic success?
Tihs was a pretty silly post.
Another thing to note is that the early Olympic games were not the major international event and showcase for the host nation that they became in the latter half of the 20th century (maybe even starting with Hitler's plans for Berlin 1936).
The 1904 games were merely a sideshow to the St Louis Worlds Fair, and were only officially opened by the Mayor of St Louis. In over half of the events, the only competitors were from the U.S.
Hoover did not even attend any of the 1932 games, but it is likely that certain financial problems were responsible for his loss than anything to do with the Olympics.
Good point, thebadger. What we've got is really two data points, both from relatively popular incumbents running against weak opponents. I just can't see any correlation, here.
@ItsMe:
Jared86, I'm pretty sure Ford didn't win either. Granted he was never elected, but he was running as an incumbent.
And let's not forget Truman and LBJ, both of whom declined to run in the face of serious opposition. That brings the ratio down to 12/19 incumbents = 63.2%.
But I agree with the critics (all except those who characterize a simple typo as a "stupid mistake"--recession or no, you should be able to scratch together enough resources to get a fuppin life), that this analysis is very weakly supported.
@Al Dimond:
...
What was the last city that made good on its plan? What was the last Olympics that benefitted its host city instead of bankrupting it? Every city should reject the Olympics until it changes its ways.
2002 (Salt Lake City)? 1984 (LA)? Both were deemed successful.
wv: auckin: Having the Olympics in Chicago would be auckin fawesome.
@ Glenn Doty:
Obama would be lobbying just as hard if one of the cities for 2016 was Houston, or any other major red city (granted there are few of them), and he would lobby just as hard if he KNEW that he was going to be defeated (fat chance) in 2012...
I'm not sure that even Houston is red. It has a Democratic Rep in Congress and a Democratic mayor who's considered a viable candidate for governor.
Even SLC is blue. Where, oh where, are the red big cities?
Well New York City could be a big red city since no Democrat has won a mayoral election there since 1989.
That is really reaching though ;)
Would be very cool for Chicago to get the Olympics. A feather in Obama's cap. The Atlanta 1996 games were great fun to attend.
And...as for Clinton having a fatal loser's taint. Maybe not.
In 1960 Nixon lost the presidential election, and in 1962 lost the California gubenatorial election, and made his famous "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore" speech.
I am no fan of Hillary Clinton--but she could definitely come back.
I think it'd be a bit early for the United States to get the Olympics considering Atlanta (what a lacklustre city for such an event!) got the games 12 years ago.
As for Rio de Janeiro, well, they're getting the 2014 World Cup, so I doubt they need yet another mega-event to handle - nor do I think many IOC delegates will want to create such a FIFA-Olympics double-whammy.
Madrid is arguably the coolest city on the list, but any of the four would be good host cities.
As for Nate's theory, sure there's a fell-good summer Olympics thing, but I don't think there's that much of a correlation. And it certainly isn't the reason why a president would support a bid. Getting the Olympics is huge for quite different reasons.
> I am no fan of Hillary Clinton--but she could definitely come back.
I think she's made her peace with not becoming president. Given her age, '08 really was her one shot. Besides, there'll be a lot of new stars around in 2016. McCaskill? Schweitzer? Warner? Someone who's as yet as unknown as Obama was back in 2000...?
What a ridiculous post Nate.
There is no correlation, and certainly no causation in your stupid theory. This sort of crap is going to hurt you.
Do people really care about the Olympics anymore? They have nothing to do with competition, and everything to do with marketing. They have been warped completely out of shape.
@Charles:
I think it'd be a bit early for the United States to get the Olympics considering Atlanta (what a lacklustre city for such an event!) got the games 12 years ago.
2016-1996=20.
That doesn't exactly put one event on top of the other. (Note that there was only a 12-year interval between LA, '84, and Atl, '96.)
Charles has it right. The Dem nominee in '16 will likely be someone who isn't on our radar. And not only will Hillary be getting quite on in years, but Secretary of State is hardly a stepping-stone to the presidency. Who was the last Secy/State to make a convincing run at the top office?
wv: witaker: I liked that actor in The Last King of Scotland.
I see the Olympics going to Chicago and the Olympics benefiting the Democratic nominee for many reasons:
1. First off– Chicago will get the games. The IOC has an unstated agreement with NBC that the US will get the games every two decades so that the IOC will get the huge pay-off that comes with exclusive broadcasting rights for the US market.
2. I don't buy the data Nate uses for pre-1984 for numerous reasons, such as that the 1904 Olympics were a little-known sideshow for the St. Louis World's Fair, the 1932 Olympics were opened by Hoover's VP (and that both men were UNELECTIBLY unpopular), etc.
3. Nate ignored Winter Olympics, which I find interesting for many reasons. In 1932, Lake Placid NY hosted the Winter Olympics, opened by Gov. FDR, who would win big that November. VP Richard Nixon, who almost won that November, opened the 1960 Games in Squaw Valley. The 1980 Lake Placid Olympics were opened by VP Mondale, but any positive effects were shattered by the US lead (and Carter backed) boycott of the '80 Moscow Games, among other reasons. 2002 was not a Presidential election year, but the post-9/11 pro-US sentiment carried over, and Bush's party gained seats in the midterm elections.
4. The most recent US hosted Olympics, ’84 and ’96, were both held in interesting host cities: LA for hosting with Hollywood flair and basically saving the Olympic Movement following the disasters that were Montréal ’76 and Moscow ’80; Atlanta for being the capitol of the “New South,” being a relatively unknown city internationally, and for being in the same region Clinton was from. Most importantly, both games were PROFFITABLE (an EXTREME rarity among Olympic Hosts [google the Montréal Olympics]), and produced gigantic medal counts for the US.
5. Provided that Obama is still popular in 2016, the games being held in his hometown may bring back recollections of Election Night ’08 and the collective national euphoria. Give the Dems a good campaigner for President, a successful Convention in an in-play region, and popularity in 2016, and the Chicago Olympics could be play a very important role in ensuring the Democrats a third consecutive Presidential win.
If he becomes governor of NY by 2010 (admittedly a big if), Cuomo would also be a serious challenger for 2016.
I have no idea what Warner's intentions are. He could have won if he had chosen to run in 2008. Anyways, the home state effect in his case would be devastating.
So yeah, I'm doubtful that Clinton can get the nomination in 2016, assuming she even wants it.
@ Glenn Doty,
If we're measuring by presidential elections - which we should, unless we want a convoluted model whereby Arkansas and Montana are among the bluest states in the nation - Houston is not a red city. Obama won it by the split hair margin of 51-49. (I'm going by the Harris County vote as a reasonable approximation of "Houston". County by county election maps are easy to find, municipality by municipality ones are not.) He also won San Antonio (Bexar County) by 5, Dallas (Dallas County) by 15, Austin (Travis County) by 29, and El Paso (El Paso County) by 33. Traditionally Republican cities like Cincinnati, San Diego, and Indianapolis, all vote Democrat now. There is really no such thing as a red city anymore.
The more meaningful distinction is whether the city in question can give the Democrats coattails in its suburbs and extended metropolitan areas. Houston does not; in fact, Galveston went to McCain by 20 points. Neither do any of the other mentioned Texan cities, or Pittsburgh, or Cincinnati etc. - these are just blue islands amidst a sea of red - whereas Philadelphia, Cleveland, and Seattle all do.
So my definition of a "red city" is a city whereby the Democrats do not win a single adjacent county next to the county containing the city itself. This allows us to make a qualitative distinction between places like Houston and Nashville, versus Los Angeles and Denver, that conforms with common sense.
Yes, I am a stats/numbers junkie. I quit fantasy sports because I was dangerously addicted.
It would or would not be a good thing for Chicago depending on what happens in 2016. It would be a good thing for Obama now.
That being said, the Head of State, as ever, gets a sentence. President Reagan said: Celebrating the XXIII Olympiad of the modern era, I declare open the Olympic Games of Los Angeles.Peter Ueberroth was a hero as private financing worked, Mary Lou Retton was a heroine as the Eastern bloc retaliatory boycott sans Romania worked and Los Angeles had consecutive weeks of good traffic for the only time in the last 40 years.
I'd say the Moscow boycott hurt Carter, but then what that happened in 1980 didn't.
Otherwise, the only real bearing the Summer Olympics have on American politics is with regard to the timing of the major-party nominating conventions. The 2012 Summer Olympics will end on 8/12, which is just one more reason why 2012 should be less interesting politically than was 2008.
Secretary of State Clinton will not seek the Democatic nomination for President of the United States again. James Buchanan was the last Secretary of State to eventually become President of the United States.
I think it says a lot about Obama that we would even think he might be thinking about something this far ahead. But the more I see this guy operate, the more I'm impressed from a political standpoint. It's like he's always many moves ahead of his opponents.
Also to you guys talking about possible Democrats for 2016. Holy shit balls! Bit early to even imagine I think. Hillary will be 68... Pretty old but five years younger than McCain. So I wouldn't count her out. Obviously it all depends on what happens over the next 8 years.
Who knows --- maybe it'll be someone we've never heard of. Who had heard of Barack Obama in May of 2001?
> Also to you guys talking about possible Democrats for 2016. Holy shit balls! Bit early to even imagine I think.
It just happens to be fun to speculate. :)
> Hillary will be 68... Pretty old but five years younger than McCain. So I wouldn't count her out.
It's not fair, but I think women's and men's age isn't viewed in the same light. At 68 her age would be far more of an issue than McCain's age ever was, I dare say.
In any case, there will be new stars in the Democratic party, whereas I think Clinton's clumsy '08 campaign would still be remembered by many.
Quite frankly, I think Al Gore running (same age as her) would be more likely, though I doubt he'd want to considering how he has found a fullfilling calling in the field of environmental activism.
Hey, Nate, this IS a joke, isn't it? As others have pointed out, inferring anything from so few data points is daft.
It sounds like the sort of cuckoo conspiracy theory that the looney wing of the Republican party would dream up to criticize Obama.
P.S. Are you making any progress in implementing alternative software for entering comments? Blogger is, imho, maddeningly user-hostile. (Whatever they use at ObsidianWings seems pretty good, as is their procedure for weeding out the nitwit-troll comments.)
It`s true Hillary looks her age but during the campaighn I thought most of the time she looked pretty good for 60. I guess she must have had a makeup artist on the payroll to keep her looking decent because she looks haggard since becoming SOS, I assume her appearance isn`t important to her anymore.
I would suggest if she wants to take another run at it in 2016, get a facelift and be upfront about it. Woman live a lot longer than men, a 68 year old female president wouldn`t be the same as a man longevity wise.
I've developed an argument throughout a variety of posts about the reasons why incumbents win or lose, and I think the odds are very much in Obama's favor for a variety of reasons, even without considering his personal charisma and political talent.
By my count, there have been 23 presidents who were elected to the office and later nominated for reelection. Of that group, only 7 failed to be reelected.
Furthermore, incumbents who get voted out of office are usually from the same party as the preceding president. For example, Bush I was from the same party as Reagan and lost reelection; Bush II was from a different party than Clinton and won reelection (though very narrowly).
Two exceptions to this rule were Benjamin Harrison (who never won the popular vote) and Jimmy Carter (whose political incompetence almost cost him the 1976 election). Also deserving mention is Grover Cleveland, who won a second term after initially losing a reelection bid (but winning the popular vote).
Why is the party of the preceding president important? There are a couple of reasons I can think of. One, a president elected while another president from the same party is in office will tend to be viewed as being in the shadow of his predecessor--this afflicted Bush I, and Taft. It doesn't necessarily afflict those who come to the office by succession--TR, Truman, and LBJ avoided it.
Second, a president from the same party as his predecessor is more likely to be held responsible for the problems he inherited. Had Hoover been from a different party than the two presidents before him, he'd probably have been in a better position politically. Likewise, one of the reasons Dubya was able to benefit politically from 9/11 was that the president from the previous eight years was not a Republican; a President Gore would probably have had a harder time escaping the charge that he (along with his party) helped make 9/11 possible.
If a terrorist attack occurs on American soil during Obama's term, God forbid, Republicans will no doubt attempt to lay the blame on him, and it might hurt him politically. But he's in an intrinsically better position than a President McCain would be in the same circumstance, where it would be easier to tie such an event to the president's party.
I haven't even gotten into the infighting among Republicans and the identity crisis they are suffering, which means that even if Obama is unpopular by 2012, they won't necessarily come up with an effective challenger. If they nominate someone like Palin (and I increasingly think it's likely that the Republican base is delusional enough to do something like that), they might just ruin their chances.
Everyone, you're missing what is going to happen. Obama will appoint Hillary Clinton as VP for '12, citing Biden has a health issue and needs to step down.
Instantly, Obama creates history again by choosing the first female VP...and sets up Hillary for a run in '16 if Obama wins.
I am a Romney guy, but I will almost guarantee the above will happen.
Al Haig was the last Secretary of State to make a serious run at the Presidency.
Unlike all 4 examples, 2016 won't be a re-election race. I assume the election influence is minimal and Obama is only thinking about his adopted hometown and boosting the economy.
Obama is in a decent position for 2012. Jimmy Carter is the only President in the last 100 years to take power from the opposing party then lose it back the next election. I really believe Rush Limbaugh is hoping against economic recovery and for a terror attack.
Unless Joe Biden is driving Obama completely bonkers, I don't think he'll replace him on the ticket. Obama is much more interested in securing his re-election and making his own presidency a success than setting up a successor. In fact, he seems uninterested in such a conflict of interest.
Biden could run in 2016 at age 73. His people have not ruled it out. McCain (72) and Dole (74) were nominees who lost their elections but for reasons besides age. Reagan was re-elected at 73. But after Hillary's near miss and Obama's historic election, there might be strong pressure to nominate a woman (like Obama has now with the Supreme Court). It's possible someone like McCaskill could do it but much more likely to be Hillary. While Secretaries of State do not typically graduate to be president, how many were as famous as Hillary, had been relatively successful presidential candidates before, had such a loyal (if annoying) following, and so much (shady) money behind her? She's the favorite but like Ted Kennedy or Al Gore, she may not follow up her near miss with a future run at all.
I don't think I'd draw conclusions on four data points. Carter lost the 1980 elections when the Winter Olympics were in Lake Placid, NY. Also, is there any data on different countries?
In fact, there could be a "let down" after the Olympics are completed, as what happened in China last year. Thus, the Olympics could actually hurt the incumbent party. Perhaps, Clinton would have won by 20 points had the Olympics not been in Atlanta.
Nevertheless, I suspect that the Olympics helps the Republican Party because it's patriotic and sometimes jingoistic nature reinforces conservative values.
To all those above who thought Nate was engaging in trivia, or blue-sky fantasies, consider this:
I was in Chicago's Grant Park on election night, watching CNN's Election results on one of the dozen-or-so Jumbo-trons scattered throughout the park. Every time that CNN broke for a commercial, what all of us saw that night was about a 3-minute sales pitch, ostensibly from the mayor's office, lobbying for the Olympics to come to Chicago.
Furthermore, in my discussions with people in the crowd that night, the opinion of many was that the Election Night celebration in Grant Park, attended by an estimated 240,000 people, was a dry-run or a demo that the city infrastructure and public safety apparatus could handle the crowds that an Olympics would bring.
Clearly Chicago wants the Olympics. How much Obama wants to contribute to that effort, and vice-versa, is a topic worthy of debate. It is nowhere near as unserious as commenters like Dan L, Steve, Richard and others above suggest.
I defibitely think in amongst the huge initiatives this could certianl be a small step with big conequences. using the power of small but the olympics greats jobs and brings the country together. A good way to heal a recession both financially and spitirually.
Not sure how this works. The 1984 Olympics were great because much of the Soviet bloc boycotted and Uberboth (sp?) put on great games. The 1996 Atlanta games were nothing special.
You would think Carter would have benefitted from the 1980 Winter games in Lake Placid and the greatest sporting event in US history. Didn't seem to help him in the Fall.
Post a Comment