You are correct. And yes, it will be viewed as a failure for Obama in that he took a risk making this trip and even sustained criticism before the verdict was handed down by the IOC to eliminate Chicago in the FIRST ROUND of voting.
Early estimates are that Brazil made a great argument pointing out how many times the Olympics have been to Europe, North America, and Asia, but NEVER to South America. It is a glaring imbalance if these games are truly based on fairness in GLOBAL competition. And because Rio de Janeiro is lacking in sufficient hotels, roads, and other infrastructure for an even this size, it will cost them at least another $10 billion than it will other cities to prepare for the 2016 games. But they were willing to pay for it and they won the nod.
I also suspect that with the growing tension between the United States, Europe, and Iran in its quest to develop a nuclear bomb, it was safer to send the Olympics to a place less likely to be embroiled in a world crisis involving nuclear weapons. Rio de Janeiro has it's own problems with high levels of inner city crime, but they are vowing to clean that up (good luck if they can!) in time for the games in 7 years.
Bui the IOC asked for those presenting on behalf of their cities to reveal their PASSION for the games and why their city would be best. Sounds like a great competition for Obama as the great and passionate speach maker, yes?
Well...HONK! HONK! HONK! He LOST THIS ONE, big time!
So maybe charm and charisma only go so far with people from other countries who may have heard the same from their own would-be "messiahs", but are less inclined to be so easily duped as American voters when making big, long-range decisions.