I’ve mentioned before that as a marketer, I have no general opposition to sales and entrepreneurship. Making things and selling things – it’s a large part of what makes the world go around. Michelle 
Obama’s anger irritation with the Ty toy company, though, is understandable – even warranted – in my opinion. I went back and reread the story, and Michelle’s own word for Ty’s actions was “inappropriate.”
Those who claim that Michelle and Barack used their daughters as part of their political campaign are misguided. How soon they forget Barack’s anger when the cameras followed him and Sasha through their Chicago neighborhood on Halloween. The girls are smart and beautiful – and a cherished part of what makes the Obama family so special. The two times we’ve seen them boldly and publicly were Election Night and at the Inauguration, as we should have.
If you want to talk about displaying kids for political gain, you need look back no further than Sarah Palin dragging her infant son around till all hours, only to have her youngest daughter care for him. And the pregnant daughter and fiance-by-force. And the son in the military. Give me a break, you folks who can’t/don’t/won’t see reality for what it is.
One question in the midst of the commentary was how the Obama girls are being harmed by these dolls. The mere fact that their father is now the most scrutinized man on the planet will affect these girls’ lives in ways unimagined, and in ways far more sustained than having toy likenesses made of them. But that doesn’t make Ty’s position right. It’s hard to argue that this is anything other than profiteering by Ty.
Not sure whether it warrants a full-fledged boycott, but I know I won’t knowingly be buying or recommending Ty toys as stocking stuffers anytime soon.
Just my two cents, for what their worth.
UPDATE, 25 Jan. 3:06 p.m.
Not being the denizen of the Internet (or the blogging world) that I am, my sister hadn’t heard or seen any of the bruhaha surrounding the Obama girls dolls. Her opinion, succinct and common-sense as ever: Michelle and the Obama family have much bigger/more important things to worry about. These dolls are the least of their concerns, and she would have been much better off just letting this go without any public comment. My sister may have a point…
January 25, 2009 at 9:07 pm
If you want to talk about displaying kids for political gain, you need look back no further than Sarah Palin dragging her infant son around till all hours, only to have her youngest daughter care for him. And the pregnant daughter and fiance-by-force. And the son in the military. Give me a break, you folks who can’t/don’t/won’t see reality for what it is.
What does Sarah Palin have to do with this? The story is about the Obama girls, the dolls, and whether or not Michelle should be irritated. Dragging in Palin is ridiculous, and just shows your bias. Somehow, it’s always the Republicans, isn’t it?
What does Sarah Palin have to do with the making of these dolls or Michelle’s irritation? Honestly, whether or not Michelle dragged the kids around and then complained is or is not true. The fact that someone else may have done so is completely irrelevant. Does Palin’s dragging or not dragging of her kid around tend to prove or disprove that Michelle Obama is over-reacting to the story? If Palin over-exposed her child, does that prove the Obama girls have not been flaunted in public? If Palin’s kid was kept up late, does that prove Michelle Obama didn’t parade her children before the camera? Or are you willing to make room for the possibility that even if Palin dragged her kids around, Obama could have to? They aren’t mutually exclusive, right? As a hypothetical, if Palin dragged her kid to 15 events, but the Obama’s only dragged their kids to 12, does the fact that ‘Palin did more’ mean the Obamas did nothing? I think they still did 12, didn’t they?
And don’t forget the girls were dragged in front of Access Hollywood, enumerable magazine photo shoots, we all followed the girls as they picked their new school, discussions of the puppy, even daddy’s ridiculous “open letter” to the girls that was published in a magazine (Parade?). Oh, we’re so worried about their privacy we publish our letters to them rather than give them to the girls in private like normal families. Michelle is a hypocrite.
January 25, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Yes, I have a bias – but I’m not sure bias is the right word, as I make no apology or secret about my politics. It’s right out there in public for everyone to see. PrivatePigg evidently didn’t read the whole string of comments on the CNN blog post – someone else brought in Palin first – in an attempt to justify the use of kids in a campaign. I was responding to that.
The thing that amazes me most about this whole conversation is how angry people are about Michelle’s response. You can just feel the vitriol spewing from the commentary. The thing is, if she hadn’t responded, she’d have been labeled a bad mother. Now that she did respond, she’s a hypocrite. Wow – talk about bias…
Something tells me this groundswell of emotion over a pretty small news item, on the scale of news items, really has nothing to do with the Obama girls or the dolls.
January 25, 2009 at 10:03 pm
[...] course, you don’t expect liberals to take criticism of the Obamas lying down, do you? And how dare Ty make those dolls! You go, Michelle! I’ve mentioned before that as a marketer, I have no general opposition to [...]
January 25, 2009 at 10:16 pm
“If you want to talk about displaying kids for political gain, you need look back no further than Sarah Palin dragging her infant son around till all hours, only to have her youngest daughter care for him. And the pregnant daughter and fiance-by-force. And the son in the military. Give me a break, you folks who can’t/don’t/won’t see reality for what it is.”
No mention of the CNN blog post. Seems to me to be your opinion, doesn’t it?
As for your last sentence – Yes, you are right. This has nothing to do with the Obama girls or the dolls…Talking about them is just a cover for ________… What exactly?
And recall that you, a liberal, also posted about this item. It was news-worthy enough for you, too, wasn’t it? But I suppose you aren’t actually writing about the Obama girls or the dolls, either?
January 25, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Well, I don’t own a TV and don’t watch “Access Hollywood” when I’m near one, so I missed that little episode. I also missed all the other episodes PrivatePigg seems to talking about, and I admittedly did follow the *election* coverage pretty closely. Could this be yet another case of finding whatever you’re looking for, and manipulating it to make your case?
As for the newsworthiness? This is a blog about Christmas stockings, for crying out loud! I mentioned plush toys earlier that very day. It’s not a real stretch, honestly.
All I hear still coming from the “other side” is YELLING about nothing. And, it’s not just we “liberals” who took issue with Ty. Reference the woman who said something to the effect of, “I don’t agree with the Obamas about much, but I agree with Michelle about this.” I admit, I made it more political than it needed to be – in response to some stupid sniping. That was rather foolish on my part.
I won’t be surprised to get another big, huffy response to this, though.
January 25, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Well, since you wrote a nice “huffy” piece… At least you seem to recognize that bringing in Palin was pretty irrelevant.
I don’t own a TV
Then you are probably the last person that should be commenting on when and where the girls were “boldly and publicly” before the populace, eh?
Could this be yet another case of finding whatever you’re looking for, and manipulating it to make your case?
Access Hollywood? People magazine? Parade magazine? Yeah, I’m really grasping at straws “manipulating” the evidence. Pffft. If one wanted to find three fora for making something or someone public, those three would be a good three to choose. They are hardly “local” and are not considered “political” in any way. Pretty good places to start to reach a broad cross-section of the public at large.
it’s not just we “liberals” who took issue with Ty. Reference the woman who said something to the effect of, “I don’t agree with the Obamas about much, but I agree with Michelle about this.”
Oh, you mean that anonymous commenter at CNN? Yeah, she’s a reliable person to quote. If she says she “doesn’t agree with Obama,” then we must certainly take her word for it… Hey, I don’t agree with Bush, but the Iraq War was a good idea. Make sure you quote me for the proposition that the Iraq War is a popular bi-partisan effort next time you discuss it, ok?
January 25, 2009 at 11:46 pm
As for the newsworthiness? This is a blog about Christmas stockings, for crying out loud! I mentioned plush toys earlier that very day. It’s not a real stretch, honestly
So for political blogs that discussed Obama earlier in the day, it would not be much of a stretch for them, either?