Someone needs to tell Michelle Obama that her kids are public figures.
Understand, I think it’s somewhat tacky that a toy manufacturer is producing a pair of dolls that share the name of her daughters. And if that’s what she wants to say–that it’s tacky–I’ve no problem with that. If she wants to say it’s mercenary, also fine. If she wants to say that she thinks a sizable percentage of the revenue generated should be donated to charity, that’s great.
The one thing she doesn’t get to say is that her daughters are private citizens. Amy Carter is a private citizen. The Bush twins just became private citizens. The Obama daughters just aren’t. It’s unfair, sure. They didn’t do anything to bring this on themselves. The spotlight is on them because of a decision made by their parents, one of whom is already an action figure and the other of whom will probably be a fashion doll before too long. But her parents DID make that decision, and if they didn’t want their daughters to become public citizens (so to speak) then they should have made a different decision.
I think as much privacy should be reserved for them as possible, particularly considering their age. I think the media circus that their first day in school became was ridiculous. But, well, they ARE the first family, and it’s not like the dolls are ugly. In four to eight years they’ll be private citizens. But now, well…they aren’t. And that was their parents’ call to make, and they made it, and you can’t unring that bell just because people can buy your kids and put them on shelves.
PAD
• 
Very true, PAD, and I’m sure that Barack and Michelle are going to take a lot of heat if they continue to bring this up.
But then, as we’ve seen, the definition of ‘privacy’ for public figures has been eroding further and further to the point that it’s basically non-existent, and the internet and more and more ‘media’ has certainly contributed.
I don’t even want to imagine the kinds of things that the Obama daughters are probably going to have reported about them, compared to the Bush twins, or Chelsea Clinton. And it will probably only get worse.
You bring up a valid point, but I think there is truth on both sides. Politicians are not private citizens. But how far does that extend. How far out into their family and friends does the “no longer private citizen” description reach.
It is especially touchy when it comes to children.
All this is true, but I must say, those dolls are creepy. I’d be really weirded out if I were 7 or 10 and saw myself as a doll on a toy store shelf. Hëll, I’d be weirded out if I saw myself as a doll on a toy store shelf now. There’s no way Michelle can enforce the sentiment that her daughters shouldn’t be objectified like that, but I don’t blame her for feeling that way.
I think it’s plausible that she’s saying this more to draw a line for her kids rather than drawing a line for the behavior of commercial enterprises.
She sat by when her daughter hijacked Barack’s broadcast. She refused to deny them the experience of interacting with their father for the sake of his public dignity.
Now they’re being traded as commodities. This doesn’t make her inaccuracies true. But, like Garrison Keillor says, no labor is wasted on a child.
If this is what’s going on, this is just part of her working out what she really means to say to her kids, and she shouldn’t care what anyone else thinks.
Agreed in general, although I think she gets to SAY her kids are private citizens — we just get to disagree. (I think that’s pretty clearly what you meant, though.)
Certainly a level of bully-pulpit disapproval seems called for, but as long as no one’s talking about going beyond that it seems fine.
TWL
It’s also counterproductive–when you let people know that there is one easy way to get under your skin you almost invite that kind of attack.
Luckily, I think the general public will react quite negatively to anything egregiously nasty. When the producers of That’s My Bush! tried to portray the twins as engaging in incest the idea got shot down. When Limbaugh made a cruel comment about Chelsea Clinton he was smacked for it. When Al Franken played Chelsea on a skit on SNL I recall the audience not loving it and I don’t think he ever did it again.
People are able, in the land of the free, to act like douchebags but they will probably not be happy with the reaction they get when they go after people’s kids. Bleating that “Well, EVERYONE is somebody’s kid” will not cut it with those that were lucky enough to be raised right.
(It occurs to me that Michelle’s point was aimed more at allies than foes. There is nothing she can do about what Obama’s enemies will say but this may help keep some of their more enthusiastic supporters from going too far. They have to deal with Barack Obama Wine, Barack Obama glow in the dark refrigerator magnets, the Color Me Extraordinary Barack Obama Coloring Book, the Barack bobble head, the Obama Paper Towel Holder, the Glow in the Dark Obama Bottle Stopper (goes great with Obama wine!), the Obama Buddha Candle, Obama Butter & Obama Jam, Obama Soap on a Rope, Rat Terriers for Obama buttons, and many others that I am totally not making up. They can take those as compliments. But who wants their kids to try to grow up normal while people are buying glow in the dark bottle stoppers with their image on it?)
Hopefully the kids will be left alone once the novelty wears off, though I’m sure a lot of White House photographers are salivating at the opportunity to take photos like those of Caroline and John-John. How much Barack and Michelle discourage that will be a good clue as to how seriously they want their children separated from the public eye.
Well, it’s complicated.
On the one hand, at least the doll company didn’t try to make exact replicas of the girls. The Obama action figure from Japan is very recognizable as Barack Obama (and it comes with two guns and multiple swords!). These dolls aren’t at all recognizable as the first daughters until someone tells you their names. So the doll company used some restraint.
On the other hand, they’re clearly using Sasha and Malia’s fame for their own profit. There are laws against that. Ironicly, the laws against this are specifically not about privacy, as they are called “Theft of Publicity” laws. They state that public figures have a right to control their name and likeness, or at least how they are marketted.
I doubt this is coming from an entirely mercenary place from the doll company. There’s actually something really good about having a high profile Black doll, one that isn’t just Barbie’s Black friend.
I guess I don’t really have a clear opinion about this. The company should have used more restraint, but I don’t think it’s all that bad.
>But then, as we’ve seen, the definition of ‘privacy’ for public figures has been eroding further and further to the point that it’s basically non-existent …
Let’s get real here. It’s true of almost anyone. How far can the average citizen stick their nose outside the house without coming under some form of surveillance from traffic cameras being used to keen an eye on people (the police here finally, er, copped to it) to just about any public, not to mention most private buildings now having security cameras – hëll, even taxis and transit vehicles! Internet cameras, Web sites set up to bully or taunt people. School kids even. Privacy? Make me laugh.
Let’s get real here. It’s true of almost anyone.
Yes, it is.
But the media isn’t outside my door, waiting to report on what I named my dog. The paparazzi isn’t there to shout at the top of my lungs about my first crap of the day.
Surveillance isn’t quite the same as reporting. 🙂
You have a point. It’s more insidious.
I agree that unfortunately, the choices made by the President and First Lady will put their children in the spolight also. After all they ae the First Family of the United States. (Britain’s Royal Family doesn’t ever get a reprieve and are born to it).
At least they only have to worry about it for 8 years max.
However, the media doesn’t have to focus on the Obama daughters and hopefully will back away after the initial first month or so in office settles down. They are only kids after all and they are not the ones making the policy.
The issue is public vs. private. However, for all intents and purposes, the Obama family, as did all Presidential families before it, just moved in to the nicest and most recognizable public housing in the United States. The home the President and his family live in is courtesy of the public dime.
I understand, as a mother, wanting to shield you children from the harshness of the public glare. As parents, Michelle and Barack want their girls to be able to live as normal of a life as possible given the unique situation they are in. However, they had to know that once they bought the ticket for this ride that they paid for all the smooth sailing and bumps in the road (sorry to mix metaphors) that come with the trip.
I feel that the Obama family is in a unique position. All over the country and the world, children are energized by the new first family. My son is 7 years old. He followed the election coverage fiendishly. His imagination and interest has been sparked by the thought of a little girl living in the White House that is the same age as him. Children everywhere are hungry for more information about the Obama girls. They want to know if these girls are like themselves.
I appreciate the desire to limit press and media access to these young ladies. However, if the President and Michelle would acknowledge that people, especially children, are interested and intrigued by Sasha and Malia and provide limited and controlled access, they could be doing a lot more good than harm.
Allow the girls to do a 30 minute special on Nickelodeon with Linda Ellerbee where they can use the opportunity to feed the desire for “access” and teach kids a few things at the same time. Allow the girls to go on “Ellen” with their mom and answer questions about their new life. Giving the press access to these girls in controlled circumstances would slow some of the frenzy down.
You can’t help but be interested in them. They are adorable, well-behaved and smart. They are great role models for the youth of America and could do a lot of good.
It’s better to orchestrate the access and control it than to give no access and have the press try to be sneaky and underhanded to get it.
On the other hand, they’re clearly using Sasha and Malia’s fame for their own profit. There are laws against that. Ironicly, the laws against this are specifically not about privacy, as they are called “Theft of Publicity” laws. They state that public figures have a right to control their name and likeness, or at least how they are marketted.
I am not a lawyer, but for what it’s worth my understanding is that these sorts of “right of publicity” laws vary from state to state. Plus, since any “right of publicity” must naturally be balanced with First Amendment guarantees for free expression, it’s not as if a “right of publicity” can necessarily be deemed absolute. (That’s why there are lots of lawsuits and lots of courts…)
For what it’s worth, balancing a celebrity’s “right of publicity” against another’s appropriation of their likeness has come up in previous cases when celebrities (who had been accustomed to some measure of control of their likenesses, trademark, and “branding”) have taken public office (where some hold that being now being an elected official in public office trumps any previous interest in controlling one’s own likeness.) I vaguely recall actor/performers Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura had run-ins with marketers appropriating their “brands” upon their governerships, and I imagine other celebrities may have gotten involved in similar legal wrangles.
I don’t know, however, if any of those legal wranglings came to involve the children of the public figures, though…
I dunno, Peter. How’d you feel if people were constantly coming up to or hassling your kids at a convention because, well, “Peter David’s your Dad! So he’s a public figure, and thus so are you!”. Not because of anything they themselves did.
If the Obama kids start making public appearances beyond what’s necessary for being a family (walking to Air Force One, Christmas tree lightings [although that last is more optional], etc.), yeah, they’re more fair game. But unless they do, they’re young kids who haven’t done anything themselves to warrant having to deal with this sort of thing. I think Michelle’s right in wanting them left alone as much as possible.
Sorry but you’re wrong. Barrack Obama is the only one living in that house who isn’t a private citizen. They may be famous but that doesn’t mean their lives and images should be available for public scrutiny.
Vaughan, holding public office isn’t the only thing that makes someone a public figure. Michelle Obama has given many speeches and gone on many TV shows. So despite not holding an official office, she is a public celebrity in the same way that any other celebrity is.
To some degree, that’s true of the kids, too. They were on stage at the Democratic National Convention. They gave an interview. They’ve appeared at public events with their father several times. The Obamas haven’t pushed their kids in front of a camera at every opportunity, but they haven’t locked them away either.
You can’t bring someone on stage on the night of the acceptance speech and then say that they’re not at least slightly public figures.
Sorry but you’re wrong. Barrack Obama is the only one living in that house who isn’t a private citizen. They may be famous but that doesn’t mean their lives and images should be available for public scrutiny.
Their lives and image ARE available for public scrutiny. There’s no way they can’t be. How would you propose to stop that fact? Censor any image or text that deals with them?
If you choose to appear in any public place you are making yourself available for public scrutiny. Obviously nobody is allowed to invade your private property or home but if the kids are out in public there is nothing that can be done. Better to find some kind of balance that protects the kids without raising them like veal. I don’t envy the Obama’s in navigating these tricky waters but as PAD pointed out, this was part of the calculation one makes in deciding to run. (It’s unfortunate that a lot of very qualified people probably decide that the cost is too high and decide not to run. It’s also amazing that people who have every reason NOT to want tight scrutiny decide to dámņ the torpedoes and go full steam ahead (Paging Mr’s Spitzer and Edwards!))
Now it’s an interesting point PAD brings up that makes me wonder–when he says that the Bush twins or Chelsea Clinton are now private citizens, how much does that change? Would it now be illegal to market Bush twin dolls, where it would have been legal before? Was it legal to make a Chelsea Clinton T-Shirt while she was campaigning for her mom but now I’d risk a lawsuit?
Is this a case where the politicians just don’t bother suing because it would be more trouble than it’s worth or are the vendors protected? Would someone selling a straight no joke Chelsea figurine be at more risk than someone selling something that is obviously done as a parody?
Not that I’m planning anything (Though the Blagojevich Hair Hat would be a killer Halloween item).
(Though the Blagojevich Hair Hat would be a killer Halloween item).
A Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episode beat Blago to it by a number of years. 😉
I’ve used Well, EVERYONE is somebody’s kid when someone else’s offense was taken hostage as a shield for bullying. I consider that kind of hostage-taking every indication of being raised wrong.
I dunno, Peter. How’d you feel if people were constantly coming up to or hassling your kids at a convention because, well, “Peter David’s your Dad! So he’s a public figure, and thus so are you!”. Not because of anything they themselves did.
Except I’m not a public figure. I’m a private citizen. I work in the private sector. I may be better known than the average bear, but I don’t work in the public sector, nor have I embarked on any sort of public campaign. I don’t hold any publicly elected position. Granted, neither do Obama’s kids, but their father is the president and they’re in the public eye and now public figures. It was inevitable. So it’s a bit naive on the First Lady’s part to start saying her kids are private citizens and no different from kids whose mothers–well–aren’t First Ladies.
Furthermore, no one should be running up to kids and hassling them whether they’re private or public citizens, so I’m not sure how your comparison holds up.
PAD
Yeah, I don’t quite understand the point–hassling Peter’s girls or the Obama kids or just some random kid in the street is wrong no matter who their parents are.
And maybe I’m missing something but aren’t all public figures in this country also private citizens? It’s not an either or, is it?
If someone made dolls with as much of a likeness as the Obama kids dolls have (ie, not very) of my girls and named them Amanda and Melissa, I don’t think there’s much I could do about it. The only difference between myself and Michelle Obama is that I would be justified in being surprised that anyone would bother.
If anyone were to go up to one of my kids and pester them in an attempt to register antipathy toward me, they would be under the same constraints as if they did it for any other reason and, if they didn’t get the message to back the F off, I trust the friendly security people would gently escort them down a fire escape or something.
But I think this is all much ado about little. Michelle Obama is probably smart enough to know she has no control over this. She’s just making a statement and trusting that the press and public will heap scorn on those who cross the line. I don’t think they have too much to worry about, at least for the first term. Second term, as both are going through their teens, well, that’s never easy on anyone.
I’m actually surprised that some of you feel this way, especially considering how society objectifies young girls. I think the attention the media is giving these girls does get pretty creepy more often than not. I really get turned off the some cable news shows were stalking these kids on their first day at school. But the Doll thing, it is incredibly creepy, and the way some people are lashing out at her for defending her young is even more off putting.
BTW- Is the person making these Obama Kids Dolls, is he donating the majority of the proceeds from sales to a charity of the girls choosing?
1 I wonder when Mr. Larsen (on?) will claim “exclusivity” on the use of the children in the funny books and profit from the likeness’s.
Truly,
Glen
If “public figure” just means “famous person”, then yes, you are a pubic figure, Peter, as is Obama, your kids, and his, since your kids, like his, have appeared in the media, and by your own choice, as when you run pics of them in BID columns. But if “public figure” means “elected person”, then you and your kids are not public figures, and neither are Sasha and Malia. Since you argue that neither you nor your kids are public figures, but Obama’s kids are, what definition of “public figure” are you using?
Ah. I was interpreting “public figure” in the “well-known person/celebrity” context, not elected official context. And I’ll have to agree with Luigi that the kids aren’t public figures under the elected or have official duties (Michelle as First Lady, who gets government employee staff, and no, I don’t count Secret Service and White House daycare as staff for the kids) interpretation.
Here’s the irony of it all: Obama has the power to get rid of the Patriot Act and restore OUR privacy, and (from what I have heard) he has no intention to do so.
Yet, here he is asking the citizens to grant his family privacy. Sheesh!
Alex A. Sanchez: Obama has the power to get rid of the Patriot Act and restore OUR privacy,
He does? I thought that was a law passed by Congress.
The more I think about it, the more I have to say “Yeah, it’s skeezy, but you’ve got to learn to take that kinda stuff in stride.”
I mean, did she not see all the stuff with her husband’s face on it they were selling in Washington last week? With her face on it?
Now, even though she should have expected this, it doesn’t mean she can’t say something against it. She’s got every right to complain about people selling her childrens’ likenesses – but she would be better served by following Barack’s example in the face of slimy behavoir and playin’ it cool. That way, only Ty would be the party who looked like jerks here.
Would it have been okay if the dolls just looked like the girls but were named Mandy and Sal? Would that just be ‘coincidence’? Ever see a Hilary Clinton nutcracker? Or bobblehead? First Ladies are just as fair game. Somewhere in the world, someone is going to manufacture “knockoffs” with or without the same names but the same intent, and unless we can police 6 billion people, the Obamas need to get used to it. Is it tacky? Is it wrong? Probably, but it is going to happen. I can’t see the press backing off.
>Susan O at January 27, 2009 06:29 AM
That being said, the dolls don’t look exactly like the girls. Their faces are more reminiscent of the generic features of a Bratz doll than any actual person.
I think it would be even creepier if the dolls really looked like the girls. The generic quality of the dolls’ faces helps keep some distance between the subject and the representation.
It’s still icky, though.
Sounds like Diana’s protestations back when about not expecting the level of scrutiny she got when she married into the Windsor clan and I never understood that because how can anyone have lived in Britain for more than thirty seconds and not be aware of the media there practically renting time on Hubble to keep the Royals under close watch? And a wildly popular (in many quarters) – and the first – black president wasn’t going to solicit anyone and everyone jumping on the bandwagon who could get something out of it? Not saying that latter is a good thing, mind you, but …
I agree with you, Evil Twin. Like it or not, the entire Obama family is now in the public eye, and as such really don’t own their own lives any more. It’s a sad fact of celebrity, something that they now are.
In eight years, they’ll be able to go back to something resembling quiet anonimity. But not completely so.
When Amy Carter went to Memphis College of Art in the early ’90’s, she still had a Secret Service detail. Former Presidents and their families get that protection for life. So here’s sweet, meek little Amy, doing her life studies art class, drawing nude models, and there’s this great hulking Man in Black sitting in the back of the room, armed, on a hair trigger, ready to protect her from any and all assailants. It kinda puts a damper on your social life.
There’s little way around it, unless you want to take the advice of Peter O’Toole; “We live public lives. If you want to guard your privacy, stop it.”
Sometimes, though, life won’t let you.
Miles
Actually, when I met Chelsea Clinton, she informed me otherwise. I was recruiting respondents for a test screening of a film in SoHo, and when I approached this one woman in the theater lobby from behind, she turned, and it was she. I expressed surprise that she wasn’t surrounded by SS, as I thought that would be the case for both her father and his family, and she explained that it wasn’t.
And as I recall, this wasn’t and isn’t the case for JFK’s immediately family: Jackie Kennedy was photographed in the nude by a paparazzo right outside her bungalo, JFK Jr. was mugged by a guy who stole his bike, and I is Caroline Kennedy surrounded by the SS?
I’ve got to disagree with you on that. We have privacy laws and harassment laws out there for a reason and I find it very disturbing that our society seems so willing to throw those out the window whenever they want to chase a celebrity. They’ll go after a Britney Spears or an Ashley Simpson – celebrities who benefit financially from their fame – but they’ll also dig through the trash of a plumber who happened to be mentioned by a presidential candidate (not that I’m not disgusted by how that guy is now milking his fame for all it’s worth). But now your saying that Obama’s whole family should have their privacy completely repealed, to the point where dolls are being made in their name without any permission on their part, simply because of the actions of one person
I mean, where do you draw the line? At Obama’s unkles? Cousins? His decision was made by him, and yes both he and Michelle should expect this and get used to this sort of treatment. But I have to draw the line when it comes to their kids. I believe that it’s well within Michelle’s rights to demand that the dolls be removed from the store shelves; just as it would be within the rights of the rest of us. Sometimes the law is the law and no one in this country should be exempt from the consequences, or benefits, of our law.
I’ve got to disagree with you on that. We have privacy laws and harassment laws out there for a reason and I find it very disturbing that our society seems so willing to throw those out the window whenever they want to chase a celebrity. They’ll go after a Britney Spears or an Ashley Simpson – celebrities who benefit financially from their fame – but they’ll also dig through the trash of a plumber who happened to be mentioned by a presidential candidate (not that I’m not disgusted by how that guy is now milking his fame for all it’s worth). But now your saying that Obama’s whole family should have their privacy completely repealed, to the point where dolls are being made in their name without any permission on their part, simply because of the actions of one person
I mean, where do you draw the line? At Obama’s unkles? Cousins? His decision was made by him, and yes both he and Michelle should expect this and get used to this sort of treatment. But I have to draw the line when it comes to their kids. I believe that it’s well within Michelle’s rights to demand that the dolls be removed from the store shelves; just as it would be within the rights of the rest of us. Sometimes the law is the law and no one in this country should be exempt from the consequences, or benefits, of our law.
But now your saying that Obama’s whole family should have their privacy completely repealed, to the point where dolls are being made in their name without any permission on their part
I don’t know–are they explicitly marketed as The Obama Daughter Dolls or are they dolls that have the same names as the Obama daughters?
They’re not marketed as “Obama” or Presidential. They’re dolls of Black girls, sold as a pair, named Sasha and Malia. They don’t look like the girls, they’re kinda generic and cartoony. The company says they aren’t meant to be the Obama daughters, the company just liked the names.
Judge that however you like. My opinion is that they’re trying to play off the daughters, but they’re also not trying to push it so hard that they can’t be slippery about it. I’d say it isn’t great, but not *that* big a deal.
I think Michelle needs to seriously lighten up. The dolls don’t look like her girls and there was nothing about their production that was intended to be insulting and/or derogatory in nature. She also needs to learn when to shut up about things. The news of her complaints about the dolls was the first that I and many people I know had seen of the story. She likely gave the dumb things far more publicity than they would have had if she had just kept her mouth shut about them.
She’s also making herself look amazingly clueless here. Everyone and their brother, and she herself to some degree, expressed what a historic moment that her husband’s election was. They are the first black first family in our history. Only an idiot could possibly believe that there are a million businessmen out there looking in to how they can capitalize and profit on this right now. The best thing she can do, again, is shut up about most of it. Anything that’s racist or vile in nature will get ripped tp shreds without her prompting and all her complaining about matters is going to do is draw attention to whatever it is she doesn’t like and very likely create consumer interest.
I would be more “miffed” with Mrs Obama if she didn’t stand up and protect her girls as much as possible. I bet if she said nothing, there’d be people whinging that she wasn’t stopping her children from being “exploited”.
Miles Vorkosigan:
Former Presidents and their families get that protection for life.
Luigi Novi:
Actually, when I met Chelsea Clinton, she informed me otherwise. I was recruiting respondents for a test screening of a film in SoHo, and when I approached this one woman in the theater lobby from behind, she turned, and it was she. I expressed surprise that she wasn’t surrounded by SS, as I thought that would be the case for both her father and his family, and she explained that it wasn’t.
First off, that’s a great story–running into Chlesea Clinton that way.
I looked it up in the U.S. Code (18 U.S.C. 3056) and it appears that the Secret Service provides lifetime protection for ex-presidents who entered office before January 1, 1997. Presidents who entered office after that time get Secret Service protection for themselves and their spouses for 10 years after leaving office. The code also notes that children of ex-presidents receive Secret Service protection for ten years or until becoming 16 years old, whichever comes first.
The 10-year limitation seems to have come into play with legislation passed around 1995; prior to that, the “lifetime Secret Service protection for ex-Presidents” that some remember was still in place. I’m not sure if/how that 1995 legislation may or may not have changed things for the protection of presidents’ children or spouses.
But sometimes that’s counter productive, Megan. By all means she should say something when someone is attacking her daughters or making vile statements about her family. But stuff like this only serves to make her look foolish and likely draws even more attention to the thing she dislikes.
I would bet you money that there are people who knew nothing of these things before she herself brought attention to them that are going to be buying them now. She very likely increased demand for them and created the air of them being a possible collectible to some.
By all means she should defend her family when and where appropriate, but she should also show enough common sense to know when she’s bringing greater recognition and/or value to something by talking about it then she would by staying out of it.
The claim that they “just liked the names” and didn’t base them on the Obama girls is such a load of horseshit. That kind of BS dodge automatically puts me on the girls’ side.
I would bet you money that there are people who knew nothing of these things before she herself brought attention to them that are going to be buying them now.
On the other hand, I’ve also seen news stories about the dolls on sites like Yahoo, and I have yet to read an article about what exactly Michelle Obama said.
Jerry,
Sometimes we mothers react first though-these are aour babies after all!! LOL
I forgot to ask waht the deal is over there with using children’s images anyway? Here if the school, sporting club etc want to use our kids photos, names, suburb, even in the club/school magazine, they have to get signed permission from the parents/guardians.
I’d just like to point out that Michelle Obama didn’t really do all that much. A representative said they didn’t approve of the dolls. It’s not like Michelle Obama is personally going on talk shows and campaigning against the company. This is about the mildest protest that the public could actually hear about.
Each of us has probably spent more time on this subject that Michelle Obama has.
“If the Obama kids start making public appearances beyond what’s necessary for being a family (walking to Air Force One, Christmas tree lightings [although that last is more optional], etc.), yeah, they’re more fair game. But unless they do, they’re young kids who haven’t done anything themselves to warrant having to deal with this sort of thing.”
I think that’s what we will see happen after this first rush of newness wears off and routines set in. IMHO, the media needs to take their cue from the parents – if they do nothing extra to put the girls in the spotlight, they need to stay away from them at school and in their ordinary routines. After all, they are still just little girls and at their ages, not really likely to generate a press frenzy with their actions.
Newsarama has an article today that’s related to this, although speaking specifically of Obama and his use in comic books:
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/010928-Obama-Comics.html
Yeah, I sort of understand that it’s naive to think that presidential children are not public figures but at the same time, I agree they should be. I agree with Brad Pitt that just because he and his wife are incredibly hot, it doesn’t give the press the right to stalk their kids. Sure, they might *want* the story of Brangelina’s twins first prom date someday, but does that really give them the right?