In short - it's practically impossible to say that one country impressively 'won' the Olympics in any sense.
Rather than defining "winning" as something that is practically impossible to say that one country did, why not just define it as whoever wins the most medals (weighted or otherwise)? For each event, the winners are the ones who got medals, so whichever country won the most medals won the most events and, therefore, very straightforwardly won the Olympics. You could even break it down by category: Russia won Rythmic Gymnastics, China won Badminton, etc.
The only problem I see with this is that this makes the Olympics, as a whole, have very little to do with that "sporting culture" or whatever was mentioned before. Its more about who is the biggest and richest country. I can see why people would be turned off by that, but its a fact nonetheless.
All it really does is make the saying that the US won the Olympics loose any realy value as a claim of something of any importance.
And for bluegenes to come out saying that if you disregard the biggest factors in winning the Olympics (size and money) then the US doesn't look all that impressive in its last remaining stat just looks like poor loser talk to me.
(and 1984 doesn't count, I think)
Why not? Does hosting affect your medal count, or something? Should that be taken into account for y'alls number of medals this year?