Crossing the line?
posted at 12:50 pm on January 26, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The makers of Beanie Babies have two new models, and it’s not helping Michelle Obama’s kids. Ty has introduced their Sasha and Malia dolls, which happen to be African-American, just like the more famous Sasha and Malia Obama, the new First Daughters. The new First Lady is not amused, but Ty says any resemblance is just a coincidence:
The new Sasha and Malia dolls from Ty Inc. aren’t getting any love from the White House.
On Thursday, Michelle Obama’s press secretary Katie McCormick Lelyveld said they consider it inappropriate to use the girls, who are “young, private citizens,” for marketing purposes.
The new dolls, “Sweet Sasha” and “Marvelous Malia” are a part of the “TyGirlz Collection.”
Why is Michelle so exercised over this? Well, the other models in the TyGirlz Collection have these names: Britney, Lindsay, and Paris, not exactly role models for the next generation of young women. (They also have “Hillary” and “Jenna” for a bit more dignity.) Considering that Britney Spears, the obvious inspiration for the eponymous TyGirlz model, just had her new single banned in Britain for its title, Michelle might be on some solid footing here.
On the other hand, the Obamas didn’t seem to mind trotting out their daughters when they wanted good publicity. After the first instance, they issued public statements of regret, but they have put them into photo shoots since then. Besides, naming a couple of Beanie Babies after the two girls hardly qualifies as an intrusion on their privacy. Their names aren’t secret, and thanks to MS-NBC, neither are their Secret Service code names. I’d be more worried about the latter than the TyGirlz in terms of potential threat.
Still, it’s hard to defend Ty for their TyGirlz line at all, especially when they’re busily lying about their two new models. Telling people that the Sasha and Malia models are just coincidental to the Obamas is a lot like pissing on our heads and telling us it’s raining. They’re exploiting Obamamania for all it’s worth. I’d have more respect for them if they’d just admit it. If this doesn’t cross the line, and I don’t think it does, it’s tiresome enough as a marketing ploy.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Let’s just say Ty Inc. ain’t gonna be around much longer, and it isn’t because of this controversy.
The owner is an old, lonely, single man, and he hired his girlfriend to do God knows what there. She’s proceeded to alienate just about all his employees and hire people who are bleeding the place dry. It’s like the movie “Tommy Boy” over there.
playblu on January 26, 2009 at 2:34 PM
I have to say, I sympathize with Michelle Obama on this one. It is a little creepy, and I imagine most mothers would not be exactly thrilled.
Practically speaking, though, there’s really nothing to be done. All you can really accuse Ty of is being insensitive. The Obama’s and their children are public figures now, so they have to expect this sort of thing. And it’s not like Ty is actually hurting them in any way.
Wait until they actually get a puppy, and see if Ty doesn’t come out immediately with a new dog beanie….
I have no use for Obama, and I’m confident we’ll eventually find out that he’s corrupt as the day is long. And Michelle saying she was proud of her country for the first time in her adult life rubbed me the wrong way, of course. But their girls have done nothing, and should be left alone as much as possible.
Like the left should have done with Sarah Palin’s children.
tom on January 26, 2009 at 2:39 PM
[Comment deleted, user banned. -- Ed]
ronpaul123 on January 26, 2009 at 2:39 PM
The first family, concerned about, branding?
Speakup on January 26, 2009 at 2:43 PM
I keep being confused when you use Michelle without a last name on this blog. For example, does this sentence
in Ed’s writeup refer to Michelle Obama, the first lady, or Michelle “The Boss” Malkin, who at one point had to be pulled out of schoold because they were targeted by some a-holes who didn’t like Michelle Malkin’s politics?
factoid on January 26, 2009 at 2:45 PM
We know Ron. Isn’t it time for you to be getting back to your spaceship?
Maxx on January 26, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Am I the only one bothered by this?
factoid on January 26, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Cute dolls, no harm in this. Kind of flattering to have a doll named for you I think. They’ll be best sellers. Give Michelle a cut, she’ll probably feel better about it.
jeanie on January 26, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Ah, a moby, I see. Did Markos himself send you over?
a capella on January 26, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Ronpaul123 has been banned. Let’s not propagate the comment any further. Thanks to those who brought this to our attention.
Ed Morrissey on January 26, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Esthier, I like you. I think you, like many others here at HA are consistently considerate. But I just don’t get your point here. The first family MUST do interviews. If they didn’t they would mocked to no end. Aside from being the first African-American family to live in the WH as First Family, they are among the youngest families to take residence. What could the Obama family done differently so as to avoid the accusation of “exploiting” their kids?
If you had a family would you limit the experience — among the highest honors in the world — to just the parents? I doubt any of us would.
Palin showed up to nearly every event with her family. Most people on the right know all of the Palin kids by name and face. She was praised by the right for being such a doting, engaged mom. She did a family interveiew with People friggin Magazine. She mentioned her kids in debates, interviews and on the campaign trail. But most here at HA are adamant that the Palin kids remain off limits for scrutiny or exploitation.
The Obama family is no different. They come off as relatively plain to me about their kids. Most people I know don’t know which kid is which. Their cute girls for whom decent people hope this experience is not to trying. When the paparazzi followed them to school, I didn’t think of their parents’ politics, I thought of their safety. That’s how it should be.
Their kids don’t deserve to be exploited. They’ve earned no scandal. They are still little girls, right? WTF!?
To suggest that the parents’ want to exploit their kids is just stupid. Only a personal vendetta could make such BS sound logical. What would make the Obama’s different as parents than any of the parents in here? Political party? Race? Their height? None are relevant factors to how I feel about their kids.
I bet that every parent alive would take their kids to at least one campaign event if not want to share the entire experience with their family. However, none of us would want our kids to be taken advantage of because of that. It’s sad to see so many people toss fairness aside when it comes to this family.
The leftist blogs, commenters and Andrew Sullivan have been beastly in their treatment of the Palins. Why grovel in their iniquitous dens to harsh on this family?
The inability to disagree without becoming hateful is a moral failure. To promote such failure verges on evil. There is nothing about Obama’s politics that is so unsettling that I would wish harm upon him or his family. I have a place of reverence in my heart for every American President. America is my nation-family. When the First Family is hurt, we all are…at least the Americans among us are.
I can not determine the reason why so many in here are being so callous, but I think it’s an illness. These girls are not even teens yet. If you can’t muster up any protective consideration for them…you’re sad.
***
Chelsea was savaged for her looks. Sad, sad, sad. The Bush girls were made fun of for their underage partying. Gore’s kid got busted, so he became public fodder. The public has an obvious taste for this kind of thing. I just can’t get behind it.
I’m sure I’ll be roundly derided for defending the First Marxists and so on. But this thread has jumped the shark.
To all of those who can’t stand up for kids, regardless of your feelings about the parents, here’s a resounding “F*CK YOU” in your general direction.
The Race Card on January 26, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Hey genius, “harsh” is not a verb.
The worst part about the left’s treatment of Palin is that they have made it difficult to return to decency. The public whistle has been whet.
John McCain, Rush Limbaugh and a few other conservatives were very rude about the Chelsea because of their disdain for Hillary and Bill. But those outbursts were not the norm.
Whomever the next Republican First Family is will be equally savaged. That is sad and regrettable.
The Race Card on January 26, 2009 at 3:06 PM
No, I was pretty stunned to see that myself.
sheebe on January 26, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Barack does not want his daughters punished with Beanie Babies.
Elizabetty on January 26, 2009 at 3:13 PM
I worked an undercover sting investigating a Beanie Baby scandal several years ago. No, really. I was totally dumbfounded at the mania surrounding these plush toys. People were risking their jobs and careers and trafficking in them like they were drugs.
I think you are right about the flattery. The Beanie Baby crowd is an odd lot for sure. But I bet that it would end up as a net plus for the family. Michelle could donate any proceeds to charity or ask Ty to do so on her behalf.
The Race Card on January 26, 2009 at 3:15 PM
Interesting how quickly you lost the high road.
Hening on January 26, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Income replacement for the Obamas, now that Michelle’s not getting paid by her Chicago hospital with money BO earmarked to it?
If she is getting a cut, I want to see the income reported on their tax returns. And if it’s subject to self-employment tax, make sure that tax is paid too.
No Geithner-type passes.
BuckeyeSam on January 26, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Anything that bother RuPaul, er..”Michelle, is a good thing.
I hope the Bratz doll makers do the same thing, hussy them up like $20 DC ho’s and really make his/her head explode.
Alden Pyle on January 26, 2009 at 3:28 PM
I don’t believe they have exploited their children. It just seems odd to me. In one sense, it’s OK for them to be photographed and have the whole world know their life stories, but on the other hand, it’s not OK for beanie baby toys to be made that look like them and have their names?
Yes, it’s exploitation on the part of the company, but that was also true when US Today (or Weekly, or whatever it was) used their pictures to sell magazines. They wanted those poignant pictures of Obama as a father in order to make money.
Sorry, I really don’t see the difference.
Plus, you seem upset about them because of their age, but many girls their age go through this on a regular basis because of their own stardom. Why was it any different for the Olson Twins? Yes, they were stars in their own right, rather than because of their parents, but as children, they had no legal say in the matter. Ultimately their lives, just as Malia and Sasha’s lives are, in the hands of their parents.
And in case there’s any doubt, I would feel the same of any tasteful dolls of the Palins.
Where do you draw the line? There are paper dolls of the Bush and his family which include the twins. There is also one of Obama and his family, including his girls.
Does it become inappropriate when they become three dimensional, or are those also inappropriate? I really don’t get this.
Esthier on January 26, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Black plastic? Since when are plush beanie baby toys made of plastic?
And yes, they look nothing like them other than their skin tone and basic hair style. Kinda another reason I don’t have a problem with this. As far as I can see, they wanted black dolls and decided to pick icons. They should have gone with Michelle instead, but she’s much older than the other girls in this group (the Britney and Paris dolls). I imagine the decision was purely cosmetic.
Esthier on January 26, 2009 at 3:35 PM
And Race, I like you too. I just don’t see the issue on this one. Kids should certainly be left alone (I just don’t see this as a violation of that), and I share your concerns about the paparazzi. There’s at least solace in their secret service protection.
And as to this:
It’s certainly not limited to politics. This is just true in general and why we (in the general sense) find entertainment out of train wrecks like Britney Spears and Lindsey Lohan. This has seeped into our culture, but it didn’t happen overnight.
Esthier on January 26, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Yes, it kind of ruined the rest of it, didn’t it? I suppose that was his way of saying if we didn’t agree with him, our opinions had no value.
a capella on January 26, 2009 at 4:14 PM
The girls are no longer “young, private citizens”. They are part of the First Family, and are public figures, just as Jenna and Barbara and Chelsea were and still are. I have in my possession a comedy LP done during the Camelot era while Kennedy was in office, which has skits featuring interactions of little John and Caroline with their parents. It was funny then and would still be funny now if tragedy hadn’t intervened.
To have a rather nice doll done in your name and supposed likeness is something to be treasured — I hope Michelle gives in and buys her kids a set.
unclesmrgol on January 26, 2009 at 4:36 PM
I’m the father of three sons, so I am no expert on plush dolls. The eyeballs looked plastic and I just figured the rest of them were too.
It should have read, “Black plushtic”.
Mia culpa……..
Hening on January 26, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Looks like Captain Ed harpooned him.
unclesmrgol on January 26, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Whether that individual has the “high road” or not doesn’t change the fact that many so-called conservatives want to leave their alleged principles behind when those principles become inconvenient–like when they are dealing with an adversary who has different principles or no principles.
Just because Leftists think it’s okay to batter the minor children of conservatives doesn’t mean bestow morality on retialiating in kind.
baldilocks on January 26, 2009 at 4:54 PM
doesn’t
meanbestow morality on retialiating in kind.baldilocks on January 26, 2009 at 4:54 PM
baldilocks on January 26, 2009 at 4:54 PM
I do think that the Obama girls were a bit “exploited” during the campaign. Obama girls were used during the convention and the inaugaration to make the point that the Messiah is a young, vibrant guy. They were much more visible than Chelsea was during the 1992 or 1996 campaign. So I think that something like Beanie Baby dolls is fair game. The dolls are cute, and Sasha and Malia are probably thrilled to be famous. What isn’t fair game is making fun of the children or criticizing their appearance, etc. or using them as pawns in a political debate.
Illinidiva on January 26, 2009 at 5:02 PM
From The Onion.
Tzetzes on January 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM
What’s the problem? They’ve exploited their children during the campaign, so what’s the issue?
Hussein’s used to exploiting people, then throwing them under the bus.
madmonkphotog on January 26, 2009 at 5:26 PM
I don’t pretend to understand all motivations for having differing viewpoints on the subject. It is quite possible some can be in favor of the dolls without being committed to the abuse of minor children for political reasons. Inclusion into that latter group reminds me again why the term RINO is so offensive when certain litmus tests are applied. People often differ for valid, perfectly acceptable reasons Posters on these threads commonly try to outdo each other in voicing opposition to liberal viewpoints; you know that better than I. I think the whole issue is overblown and silly, just like the threads and comments on Michelle O’s physical appearance and fashion choices. I also have no problem with the Obama’s PR exploitation of the kids. It is what politicians do.
a capella on January 26, 2009 at 5:43 PM
There are people in this very thread who implied that they considered it an “eye-for-an-eye” for the abuse of the Palin children.
Not sure what you mean here.
Very reasonable.
baldilocks on January 26, 2009 at 7:45 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2