I see a distinct difference between these 2 stances. Yes, there are similarities. Both are blatant and hilarious. But the Sarkozy ass-gawking stance says: I admire but I must not act. And Obama is caught at the moment of as-yet-unconstrained pursuit.
Sarkozy holds his arms against his chest in a closed — but not tightly closed — position. The head is turned but upright. He is smiling, but the index finger lying against his lip blocks the edge of the smile from the point of view of anyone standing in front of him, though if the woman were to turn around, she would see it easily. His hand is tipped upward at a jaunty — one is tempted to say phallic — angle. The foot closest to the woman is planted firmly on the ground in the don't-go-that-way position, yet the other foot angles toward the object of desire. Still, the angled foot remains flat on the floor, and, at a shoulder's distance from the other foot, it the whole figure of the man a solid immobility.
Now, swivel your eyes over to Obama's feet. The foot closest to the woman, like Sarkozy's, is planted and aimed forward, but the other steps off in the direction of the woman, bending the knee upward into a bit of a crotch-squeeze and forming the base of a dramatic tilt of the entire body into a flexible S-shape that leans toward the woman. Obama's arms hang free, emphasizing the tilt, and either gravity or will causes the left arm to hang inches away from the torso. See how much lower the right hand is than the left? His neck is craned out and around so that the line of sight is directly at the ass. His mouth is open as if to say: That's what I want.
AND: Yes, I have seen the video, and I stand by my analysis of the still photograph.
Sarkozy holds his arms against his chest in a closed — but not tightly closed — position. The head is turned but upright. He is smiling, but the index finger lying against his lip blocks the edge of the smile from the point of view of anyone standing in front of him, though if the woman were to turn around, she would see it easily. His hand is tipped upward at a jaunty — one is tempted to say phallic — angle. The foot closest to the woman is planted firmly on the ground in the don't-go-that-way position, yet the other foot angles toward the object of desire. Still, the angled foot remains flat on the floor, and, at a shoulder's distance from the other foot, it the whole figure of the man a solid immobility.
Now, swivel your eyes over to Obama's feet. The foot closest to the woman, like Sarkozy's, is planted and aimed forward, but the other steps off in the direction of the woman, bending the knee upward into a bit of a crotch-squeeze and forming the base of a dramatic tilt of the entire body into a flexible S-shape that leans toward the woman. Obama's arms hang free, emphasizing the tilt, and either gravity or will causes the left arm to hang inches away from the torso. See how much lower the right hand is than the left? His neck is craned out and around so that the line of sight is directly at the ass. His mouth is open as if to say: That's what I want.
AND: Yes, I have seen the video, and I stand by my analysis of the still photograph.
Posts
225 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 225 of 225The video pretty much puts the lie to the notion that Obama was "gawking". If you don't think so, then you have your own silly right-wing agenda. There is plenty, policywise, to criticize our President about, and focusing on stupidity like this only makes one look like a knucklehead.
Pick your battles, folks.
Much ado about nothing, you small minded perverts. You'd think he was caught in in delicto flagrante. Mountains out of molehills.
The version of the photograph I had seen previously, and was responding to, was cropped at the knees—well done, photo editors! (A hollowed rule in photographing people is never amputate a limb at the joint.) Looking at this version, feet included, Nichevo is correct. Obama, Sarkozy and the tush in question occupy a nearly flat plane in space, and Obama really is that much bigger than Sarkozy. However, since this is true, Obama is clearly not eying the hinny but looking off at an angle to something at a nearer plane. Nor, apparently is Sarkozy, since Obama would be in the way.
Here is an example of the kind of dimension flattening I thought I was seeing: http://www.dependablerenegade.com/dependable_renegade/2008/10/joe-lieberman-a.html.
another brilliant example of photographic analysis from Box Wine Bertha...
You've seen the video, and you stand by your analysis of the still photo.
Wow. It must feel great to know you're always right, no matter what the facts are.
Isn't it strange how such a fierce liberal as Ms Althouse should attract a comment thread bursting with racism, homophobia and misogyny? Not so strange that she pumps a wingnut meme again, or shows the rank dishonesty of a wingnut in refusing to adjust her views in the face of reality.
eu acho que o obama não olhou nos pés da rapariga eu tenho a certeza que ele olhou no trazeiro da rapariga ele é ser humano e é muito normal que ele se sentiu atraido ainda mais com aquele toda boa.
Althouse has seen the video, but still stands by her drunken analysis of the misleading still photograph. Another classic Alhouse 'double-down'.
The video makes it pretty clear Obama is looking down at the ground as he is helping the woman in black down the steps. The reason it is obvious to me he is not looking at the young woman's bottom is because his eyes do not follow her. In fact I would say he doesn't even see the woman's back side. You could not see it that fast. Sarkozy on the other hand seems to be checking her out.
You people need to get a life. He's looking for a place to step so he can help a woman down the freaking stairs. Most of you are insane. Some people can actually see the truth when it's presented outside of a still photo without arrows to explain what happened.
So much for freedom of speech on this wing-nut blog. Two posts censored in a day. And they weren't even vulgar. Just truth.
Shish, did I miss the part where you run this joint?
It's amazing that, despite the evidence to the contrary, you still cling to seeing what you want to see.
Don't worry: we'll find those pesky weapons of mass destruction eventually. We just need to keep believing.
"AND: Yes, I have seen the video, and I stand by my analysis of the still photograph."
This is obviously a lie. Note how Althouse does not state a common analysis of the video, that Obama was looking back to help the person behind him negotiate the tall step, and then state why she does not think that analysis is accurate. She simply says "I have see the video."
Althouse's post is pure bunk, and she owes Obama, the pictured woman and her readers an apology.
To quote the Simpsons:
"Very poor, even for you."
This is beneath you, Ann - and there's not much room there.
I saw the video, Obama was involved with someone behind him - but out of the corner of his eye he spotted Ms Tush, and looked doubly awkward and off balance.
The video can get you to "this is making a mountain out of a molehill," perhaps, but not "it never happened you right wing scum." In my right wing scummy opinion, of course.
ITS A DOCTORED PHOTO OF AN EVENT THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. WATCH THE VIDEO PEEPS.
As a law professor, is it typical to admit to the heightened requirements of libel against a public figure? You admit to seeing the video, so you know what you're saying is slanderous, but you do it anyway?
Obama is obviously watching his step.
You far right Repuke loons can find nothing better to do than make up shit.
I'm not surprised at all.
Even though the video refutes your claim, you "stand by your analysis"?
What an embarrassment. You have brought new depth to the meaning of shallow.
My god, we all know now that the still photo is deceptive, that Obama wasn't really scoping out that girl, but you people just go on and on about it. What is the matter with you?
What a weird thread. I guess everyone forgot that Obama is from the Democratic party.
History shows us that it's Republicans who spend their time trying to f*ck children.
P.S. I stand by my assessment.
You just can't handle people disagreeing with you. It would be shocking if we weren't so used to it. Ho hum in fact. Sure, he was actually ringing a bell so an angel could get its wings.
I just wish I knew whether or not y'all believe the things you say. That is my usual question these days about the Left.
How can the video not affect your opinion?
Obama steps down and, to assist a different woman with whom he is speaking to, turns and takes her hand.
This absolutely accounts for his body language (turning towards his right). His right hand fluidly comes up to take the woman's hand. His eyes are looking to the location he expects to take the woman's hand. On taking her hand he continues speaking with her.
Total elapsed time? Perhaps 3 seconds.
To be "oggling" he would have to shift his attention from speaking to and physically helping the first woman down, to the young woman, and back again. This shift would have to occur in the course of 3 seconds.
If Obama had done something to suggest distraction... such as failing to grasp the hand of the first woman, or turning to look behind her, (as did Sarkozy), then perhaps one could infer a different state of mind. But he didn't.
What is happening in the photo is this... people are looking at a beautiful body and are assuming, without proper context, that Obama must be doing so as well. Put simply WE are ogling and infer that Obama is too.
How can you claim to have watched the video and then say you stand by your "analysis"?
Everything you describe from his foot placement to his eye gaze to his hand placement in the still is explained by turning to help someone down the stairs. Nothing about his body position is about gawking at anyone.
If he did check a pretty girl out, so what. But claiming he was gawking at a child and then saying he did it "worse" than another world leader is silly if that didn't happen at all.
Post a Comment