Russians reject Obama cooties UPDATED — WRONG

UPDATE:  You, my readers, are clearly right, and you’ve shown once again that context is king.  Obama is introducing Medvedev to his people and not vice versa.  Although this still does not account for Obama’s exasperated expression.

****************************

This is a fairly shocking 13 second video showing myriad Russians refusing, quite blatantly, to shake Obama’s hand:

It’s understandable that Obama is exasperated.  It’s appalling that he, the leader of the free world, let’s that exasperation show, as if he’s a 13 year old who just got rejected at the middle school dance.

I’m actually at a loss to understand the video.  I don’t believe Bush was ever on the receiving end of such blatant rudeness.  And yet he never matched Obama when it came to setting a conciliatory, if not totally self-abnegatory, tone.  Either the Russians are showing their deep lack of respect for someone who comes to them crawling on his belly, or those enlightened non-American, post-Communist citizens are racists in a way that would never be accepted in America.

Hat tip: American Thinker, which got it at Gateway Pundit

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Bill Smith

    Both.

  • 11B40

    Greetings:

    Back in the seventies, I was living in the Bronx. A Jewish guy by the name of Howard Samuels was running for governor. On a sunny Saturday afternoon, as I came out of Alexander’s department store with a couple of new LPs, a young woman I was interested in, in the Biblical sense, spotted me. She was helping Mr. Samuels campaign in the local area, so she brought him over to introduce him to me, why, I do not know. When I past on the opportunity to shake the candidate’s hand she got really, really annoyed in the was that only a really pretty woman can get annoyed. Thankfully, she at least passed on the opportunity to call me anti-Semitic.

    Also in the seventies, I spent sometime in the then USSR, in Murmansk mostly. I found the Russians capable of great warmth and hospitality but they also struck me as somewhat “stunned and stolid, a brother to the ox”. Less poetically, they struck me as a tough people in a sense that few Americans have experienced or understand. I think that Putin’s apparatchiks were sending President Obama a message that they are beyond Chicago-tough and our President is not. In my mind, whether there was a racial component to their message is of little real importance.

    What’s interesting to me is how President Obama’s narcissism seems to have entrapped him. His reaction is to bury the disrespect and pretend it never happened. I think my Bronx heritage would have had me trumpet the Russians actions all over the media and expose their low level thuggery for what it was. George Bernard Shaw is reported to have said something to the effect, if you can’t keep your skeletons in the closet, make them dance.

    It’s going to be an interesting 3.5 years.

  • Charles Martel

    What Bill said: Both.

    The Russians are signaling that they are not impressed with America’s ass-kissing, nancy boy president. Thugs are not afraid to show their contempt for a man who cannot and will not stand up for his clan or country.

    But the Russians are also dyed-in-the-wool racists. Just read some of the accounts of the African students who attended university in Moscow during the 50s, 60s and 70s. Being called “monkeys” and threatened with violence for talking to white Russian co-eds was standard fare for most of them.

    The shame here is not only any overt racism, but the fact that the president of the United States is a coward who evokes only contempt.

  • Quisp

    Er – are those Russians behind the rope, or is Obama introducing his own staff?

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    How’s that for some hope and change.

    Obama surely is increasing our standing in the world, like the Leftist cannonfodder promised.

  • Deana

    Quisp –

    It is always smart to make sure that what appears to be happening is, indeed, what IS happening.

    But Obama isn’t talking. If he were introducing his staff, wouldn’t he be saying something? Their name at least?

    I don’t know. But if this is what it appears to be, it is truly shocking.

    I can’t escape the feeling that the rest of the world has figured Obama out before many of our compatriots did. They know he is weak.

  • SADIE

    What Bill said.
    What Charles said (don’t have to go any further back than May)
    What the UCSJ said (below)

    A group of youths attacked African students at a military academy in
    Blagoveshchensk, Russia (Amur region), according to a May 13, 2009
    report by the Sova Information-Analytical Center. Police are
    investigating the incident as a possible hate crime. The attack took
    place on Victory Day (May 9) on the banks of the Amur River, and
    resulted in at least one student being seriously wounded after someone
    smashed a beer bottle on his head. Rumors on local Internet fora claim
    that paramedics refused to come to the scene out of fear of drunken
    revelers. So far, no detentions have been reported in connection with
    the incident.

    http://www.ucsj.org/news/african-students-russian-military-academy-attacked

  • SADIE

    Seems like a good place to post this story about a family attacked after celebrating July 4th. The punchline and the ‘punching bag’ was about a white family. I won’t hold my breath waiting for Rev. Al or Rev. Jesse to go to Akron.

    Akron police say they aren’t ready to call it a hate crime or a gang initiation.

    http://www.ohio.com/news/50172282.html

  • Mike Devx

    I’d have to see those Russian fellows react to another Black political leader before I could cry “racism” on this one.

    It is *shocking* indeed. I find it inexplicable. I don’t like to see any American president treated in such a manner.

    Our tender, gentle apologist for all things that we have ever done will not consider this a slight on America. He’ll walk away wondering, “I wonder what Americans have done to cause this?”

    It may very well have been a key Russian psychological test of our Gentle One, or part of a series of subtle and non-subtle tests, all planned for some time; all intended to form a synthesis of exactly what paths Russia should follow in foreign policy over the next few years.

  • BrianE

    When my wife first saw the video, she thought he was introducing the staff.
    Looking at it several times, I think he is saying the person’s name. I think Obama is making introductions.
    Especially look at the last instance. The man behind the rope reaches out to the Russian, then Obama raises his hand.
    It appears Obama is speaking.
    Is that Medvedev shaking hands? You can see a translator following him.

  • Danny Lemieux

    I have to go with BrianE on this one.

    If you look close at Obama’s hand at the very beginning, he is pointing the way to go to Medvedev all the way back by the flags…to far away to shake anyone’s hands – his hand is in a very relaxed, palm-up position. This is the same position his hand is in as he reaches out to the line of dignitaries. If he had been looking to shake hands, his palm would have been vertical.

    I think that Obama was simply introducing his team. And to Deana’s point, his lips do appear to be moving (although the picture quality is bad).

    Moreover, it is Medvedev who appears to be introducing himself to the individuals.

    Finally, there’s a commonsense test: what would the Russians have to gain by uniformly snubbing the President of the United States. What would they have to lose? You don’t initiate a negotiation by needlessly insulting your adversary. The Russians are far too smart for that.

    Unfortunately, Obama isn’t smart enough…he has already made some amazing gaffs that were insulting his hosts, such as his quip to his Russian hopes about getting a “good deal” on Alaska, which is a major historical sore point with the Russians. Never mind his trip to Europe.

    Point is, there is plenty of material to be unhappy about Obama without having to read more into issues than there really is. I have already jumped the gun in sending Book a link that didn’t pan out and which I had to retract…because I WANTED to believe what it said, not because it was so. Much as I abhor what Obama is doing, I want to be careful that I don’t descend into the state of BDS madness that the Democrat/Left did with Bush.

  • BrianE

    Here’s a still photo of the “incident”. It certainly looks different from this angle.
    Check out the guy in the glasses to get the timing.
    http://www.daylife.com/photo/0gUafti8QY3In

  • Bill Smith

    Please.

    The man is not a “translator.” Translators sit alone in offices and carefully take what is written in one language, and, with time to match/approximate the speaker’s tone, and style, write what was written in the first language in a different language.

    An “interpretor” does something quite different. He/she listens to a speaker in one language, and almost simultaneously — on the fly — repeats what is being said in a different language. The two words are not interchangeable.

    A veteran UN interpreter once said this could be quite a challenge when interpreting into Russian the words of, say, Pres. Lyndon Johnson who was given to phrases like “God willin’ and the crick don’t rise…”

  • BrianE

    American Thinker is also linking to the same photo.
    I agree with Danny. There’s plenty of issues to oppose about the direction Barack is taking the country.

    I stand corrected Bill.
    The interpreter is following Medvedev.
    Isn’t that a Nichole Kidman movie?

  • BrianE

    This and the ‘bottom’ gazing incident should remind us how tricky perspective is in photos or video.
    There is a reason why TV broadcasters show four or five different angles to a referee or umpire’s call. Even then it’s sometimes impossible to determine whether the call is correct.
    As to the ‘bottom’ gazing, I was always told men get one look. It’s the second look that gets us in trouble. In that case, Barack- inadvertant single gaze at best; Skarkozy- violates the second look, three second, and five second rule.

  • BrianE

    Looking at the Getty photo, isn’t the guy in the glasses Rep. Peter King?

  • Bill Smith

    Brian,

    As a photographer, I agree with you about POV.

    However, I’m pretty sure YouTube switched videos. I distinctly remember an earlier one where Obama did a definite double take with a shocked facial expression. I watched it several times. This newer one does look like introductions. The older one looked like a snub.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    Given that Obama is still the advocate of perception is king, the fact that this can be perceived as a slight against the US, whether by Russians or Obama’s own staff in preference to a Russian, is bad by itself.

    The careful media manager cannot manage to put a good face on American relations.

    Personally, it does not matter what the details are. Obama makes America look bad.

    The title is factually incorrect. But you could not create a better parody, because it is based and derived from the truth. Barack leading the President of South Korea in the wrong direction after an announcement, and before the announcement he went to the wrong podium.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    I watched it several times. This newer one does look like introductions.

    Obama put out his hand more than once. The photo is of the last in the succession. After each hand reach, it gets shorter and shorter, both in terms of extension and in terms of time.

    Obama the narcissist would have expected a handshake, for isn’t he the equal of the Russian? The idea of self-deprecation or of the low totem pole position of a humble host does not sit naturally with him.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    Until you can facially identify the people in the line, all you have to go on are the media’s words. And that’s never wise. Not even on minor matters anymore.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    Sadie, check this out.

    http://www.targetfocustraining.com/blog/

    The video was quite good. Teaches much about life.

    As for your link, I feel sorry for the father. He has an honest and admirable desire to protect his family. But he lacks the tools or the foundation upon which to do it. And the guns won’t solve this problem.

    The right to bear arms is not the right of arms to bear you through your troubles. You must use such things, not the other way around. Guns won’t save your family. You must. And if you can’t, if you don’t know how because your society gelded you, well no gun is going to fix that problem.

    Until you make an example of the thugs by piling up their dead bodies, they have no reason to leave you alone. Why should they leave you alone? Like they left Sarah Palin alone?

    No, the aspect of guaranteed death is the only consequence people pay a mind to when it comes to the gory goings on of the real world. And not just the cradle care world of American prosperity and security in the West. Of course, guaranteed legal punishment can often be just as effective. But we’re under the Obama now. What guarantee is there any more? So you need to ramp up the quality of the punishment, if you can’t ramp up its certainty. Otherwise, prepare yourself to for something far worse than what you have suffered to today.

    I can almost hear it now. People talking about “if you use violence, you’ll be as bad as the thugs”. Don’t kid me here. 25 to 50, or even just 12 ‘youths’, couldn’t break and kill a man on the ground? Don’t insult me by comparing me with them; their gross incompetence and childhood games. Weakness is to be despised. In a man or woman. More so in a defender of one’s family. And especially in a thug and crook. Which is why weakness, in addition to being worthy of being despised, should also be worthy of excoriating.

  • suek

    >>“if you use violence, you’ll be as bad as the thugs”. >>

    If you _don’t_ use violence, you’ll be as good as dead.

    Sometimes you have a choice. Sometimes you don’t.

  • Bill Smith

    Heh, Suek, I’m stealing that!

  • Mike Devx

    Bill Smith #17 says,
    However, I’m pretty sure YouTube switched videos. I distinctly remember an earlier one where Obama did a definite double take with a shocked facial expression. I watched it several times. This newer one does look like introductions. The older one looked like a snub.

    This is not the first time that the same link in YouTube has taken us to a new video. It is deception of the highest order. They can (and should) post new videos of course… but only via new link addresses. To do the switcheroo on is gives me 1984-style chills.

    I ran across this with the Terry Tate videos where he produced a video showing him viciously pile-driving Sarah Palin into the ground, where she lay broken and moaning – audibly moaning, saying “hurt, hurt”, while he stood menacingly over her body, leaning down over her while she lay there broken, and just wildly screaming at her.

    A few days later, that same link had been replaced by a new version of the video. The new one had a new audio mix, with Palin no longer moaning and whimpering the words “hurt, hurt”, but instead chipperly announcing “nope, not hurt here!” The new audio juxtaposed with the same broken-body imagery was also chilling in a 1984-way.

  • Mike Devx

    I forgot to mention, Bill, I too saw the older version of the link where we get the full Obama reaction to the definite snub. I clicked on it as Book’s embed this morning and just now, and they have definitely done a switch on us.

    It’s inexplicable why they would do that, aside from deliberately concealing a very unsavory thirteen second video. The new video is completely different! And yet it too is EXACTLY thirteen seconds in length. Don’t you think that is troubling? Definite concealment is indicated by the fact that both the old video and the new one have precisely the same length. This is a deliberate deception.

  • SADIE

    Ymarsakar

    Thanks for the link and your comments.

    example of the thugs by piling up their dead bodies

    The example of ‘dead thugs piling up’ should work; but I think the thugs of this planet have a death wish as it is. I would be willing to grant them their ‘dying wish’ if I thought it would make a dent. What’s left of the death penalty in the states is too clean and accommodating.
    The problem is the method. – Bring back the firing squad.

    For the protectors and parents – ALWAYS expect the unexpected.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    but I think the thugs of this planet have a death wish as it is.

    The key point that must always be remembered is that Al Qaeda tries mightily to avoid using their higher echelon command and control staff as suicide bombers. If martyrdom was so important, wouldn’t that be different?

    AQ, like anyone else is, not free from the exigencies of military necessity. They need to be alive to fight the war and they know it. Which is why death, the only permanent punishment apart from crippling and amputation, is so effective at reducing the enemy’s physical strength and spiritual morale.

    The same applies to any organization, aka gang or lynch mob. Once their leaders are taken out, they lose leadership and initiative. Their members start thinking more about their own self-survival than the combined group goal of murder and mayhem.

    But even if this was not true, the advantage of being the first to attack in order to cut in on the enemy’s OODA loop, would still be too good to pass up.

    I remember that, Nazism unlike Communism, had their leaders terminated. Thus, Nazism is dis-proven and their adherents scattered to the four winds, while COmmunism is still around in coherent organizations.

    What’s left of the death penalty in the states is too clean and accommodating.

    It’s hypocritical, like all Leftist inventions. They want to keep people in jail for life without due process. We care about a person’s innocence or guilt, they only care about whether the person gets life imprisonment or life imprisonment + execution. Their claims to moral superiority stands upon sand.