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: 1 2 Next »
they consider it inappropriate to use the girls, who are “young, private citizens,” for marketing purposes.”
Rush is not young or a girl but he is a private citizen.
And Obama X feels free to attack him.
So, I will continue to look for my toenail clippers.
artist on January 26, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Somehow I doubt we would have seen Piper and Willow dolls if McCain/Palin had won the election. And if we had, the media would certainly have rushed to Ty’s defense for marketing them.
rockmom on January 26, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Where was the voice of the Obama’s when Trig and Bristol Palin were “fair” game for the MSM to attack. Their indignation should have crossed over to protect the innocent.
iamsaved on January 26, 2009 at 12:55 PM
If You Seek Amy!
Vashta.Nerada on January 26, 2009 at 12:55 PM
As far as these things go, Michelle Obama would do better to hold her fire for some circumstance where her precious little brats are really the fodder for unfair public exposure.
The Bush girls were much older but the fact of the matter is that if Laura Bush responded to everything said about her kids in the media, she’d have come off as sounding as insane and unpleasant as Cindy Sheehan.
highhopes on January 26, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Michelle is miffed because they didn’t cut her in for any of the action.
Maxx on January 26, 2009 at 12:56 PM
It’s creepy and innapropriate. As, no doubt, will be the comments on this post that defend these actions. How long until Rush calls these girls ugly dogs the way he did Chelsea Clinton.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 26, 2009 at 12:57 PM
The First Lady is right in her criticism of Ty, and the company PR team should be canned for trying to pass of such a childish attempt to disown the marketing stunt.
However, it feels a bit hypocritical that Sasha and Malia are in bounds to be used as props when President Obama wrote his open letter to the American people on the weekend before his inauguration. The children also featured prominently in the deluge of photo essay post-inaug. It’s SOP in politics, I know that, but it seems naive for someone as educated as Mrs. Obama to think she can have it both ways.
bryanmyrick on January 26, 2009 at 12:59 PM
… the TyGirlz Collection have these names: Britney, Lindsay, and Paris …
Yeah, I wouldn’t want my daughter involved in that mess either.
Hey, how ’bout an Ed Morrisey action figure?
Tony737 on January 26, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Maxx you’re probably right. Ty all you have to do is give the Obama’s some money from the sales of the dolls and she won’t care anymore.
MobileVideoEngineer on January 26, 2009 at 12:59 PM
DeathToMediaHacks on January 26, 2009 at 12:57 PM
do we have any “Troll-B-Gone” left to spray?
Maxx on January 26, 2009 at 1:00 PM
I see, and just what is the statutory age limit on “public figures” . . . you’re right, there is no floor or ceiling.
rplat on January 26, 2009 at 1:01 PM
besides the names and skin color, they don’t look similar, do they?
Phoenician on January 26, 2009 at 1:01 PM
It’s not creepy and inappropriate. They’re cute dolls. I agree with Michelle but using your kids for “marketing purposes” cuts both ways.
Besides, how long before Obama starts calling out Ty for running towards guns and religion because they feel disenfranchised?
Skywise on January 26, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Funny how your leftwing moonbat blinders jump from Chelsea Clinton to the little brats that were supposedly sired by Barak Obama. Where is the outrage for the way the Bush girls were treated by the media not to mention all the dirty commentary about the Palin kids.
Chidren of public figures are in a tough place and, in general, should be left out of the spotlight so long as the politician keeps them out of the spotlight. Be creeped out and offended if you want but, for God’s sake, your selective outrage is absurd.
highhopes on January 26, 2009 at 1:02 PM
When you market yourselves as the First Family of Hopenchange, the offspring of the messiah, and the biggest rock stars EVAH, what do you expect, really?
Good for them. Cash in while it’s hot, because eventually the Obama fad will be the “pet rock” of this decade. Capitalism at its finest, my friends.
crazy_legs on January 26, 2009 at 1:03 PM
I wonder how many here get that reference…
Ugly on January 26, 2009 at 1:04 PM
I am sympathetic to the girls and to Michelle O’s stated concerns, but the Obamas turned themselves into pop stars, have reveled in it, and have used it to many an advantage. Now their daughters have to live with the consequences. Such is life.
BillLalor on January 26, 2009 at 1:05 PM
When all is said and done, the dolls are really cute. Besides the girls should have some fond memories of the time they were the firsts daughters.
Tommy_G on January 26, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Ok, I’ll bite. Why is this creepier than any other Obama fandom object. I think they’re all creepy. But, that’s what happens when you make yourself into a star. People want to touch anything you shine on.
Phoenician on January 26, 2009 at 1:05 PM
When I was little Ladies Home Journal (I think that was the one) had Caroline Kennedy paper dolls. If Michele did not want them to have publicity, then why do they use them as publicity stunts? They have been featured on magazine covers and used for Daddy to sell himself to the public via “private” letters to them. Shameless.
bloggless on January 26, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Buy lottery tickets – we agree, with one exception – you can’t play the big leagues only when you/the Obamas decide. Events, good and bad, now will take over.
Entelechy on January 26, 2009 at 1:05 PM
“On the other hand, the Obamas didn’t seem to mind trotting out their daughters when they wanted good publicity.”
Every fine city has a One Way road.
Eh, Michelle could just throw the kids under the bus and move on.
artist on January 26, 2009 at 1:06 PM
I’m waiting for an officially-licensed pair of Michelle Obama earplugs.
Cicero43 on January 26, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Oh, give me a friggin break…
ErinF on January 26, 2009 at 1:08 PM
From what I’ve seen, Obama’s kids seem great.
But blame it on Obama and his wife for inviting the press in to their lives beginning last summer. And if they don’t like what they’ve unleashed, blame them again for not immediately and forcefully telling all to f*** themselves when it comes to two pre-teen kids. If Obama isn’t man enough to admit his initial mistake and then go to whatever lengths he needs to cut off this kind of exposure, he’s not a man.
This is one issue on which I will allow Obama to have a thin skin. These kids–until the get into some kind of newsworthy trouble–should be off limits. But it’s Obama’s problem to impose those limits. For example, if MSNBC really revealled the code names for the kids, I’d cut off their access. It’s not as if he has no other fawning media outlets. That’d fix the MSNBC bandwagon. If Obama had a backbone, he’d snub them every chance he got–for FOX even.
BuckeyeSam on January 26, 2009 at 1:09 PM
Um, Michelle — they’re not private citizens. Neither are you. Neither is your husband. This is part of the package you went after, and you trotted them out when it served your purpose, so learn to live with it.
cheeflo on January 26, 2009 at 1:09 PM
I take it that today is a slow news day.
Beanie Babies? Mary, please.
paul006 on January 26, 2009 at 1:10 PM
The Obama’s are all for exploitation when it serves their purpose…can’t have it both ways.
DCJeff on January 26, 2009 at 1:10 PM
I didn’t until I read the article (but I’ve never heard the song either). It’s not clever. Clever was AC/DC’s “big balls”, clever was Quiet Riot’s “Come on feel the noise” or Cyndi Lauper’s “She-Bop”. This is “look at me, I want attention, I’m relevant… I AM CAPTAIN KIRK!”
Skywise on January 26, 2009 at 1:11 PM
The Obama’s are all for exploitation when it serves their purpose…can’t have it both ways.
DCJeff on January 26, 2009 at 1:10 P
Oh but they can.
They’re liberal Dems.
artist on January 26, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Captialism, baby.
That’s the exact same line the slimy Left used for Palin’s kids. I didn’t think it worked then, either.
VolMagic on January 26, 2009 at 1:12 PM
The Obama’s are all for exploitation when it serves their purpose…can’t have it both ways.
DCJeff on January 26, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Bingo!
Cody1991 on January 26, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Michelle’s just pissed she’s not getting a cut.
Pimp your kids enough and don’t be surprised when others do the same.
JammieWearingFool on January 26, 2009 at 1:13 PM
That’s the point here. Michelle evidently does not believe in capitalism.
Obviously, neither does Obama.
I wish they’d go over it.
They’re acting like elitists-too good to had a mere doll made in their likenesses.
I don’t see them complaining too publicly about the Obamessiah heretical merchandise.
Badger40 on January 26, 2009 at 1:13 PM
I like the new Ed!
lorien1973 on January 26, 2009 at 1:13 PM
That’s the exact same line the slimy Left used for Palin’s kids. I didn’t think it worked then, either.
VolMagic on January 26, 2009 at 1:12 PM
But we all know the left doesn’t believe in Capitalism.
So, they were lying.
artist on January 26, 2009 at 1:14 PM
If they had made Piper and Willow dolls, you can be sure that they would have been dressed in fur, pregnant, and would come with both firearms and a carcass. Made in China. Bible not included.
(Do I sound bitter?)
turfmann on January 26, 2009 at 1:15 PM
I’m sure you said the same about the intense public scrutiny of the Palin family.
Jim Treacher on January 26, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Cry me a river.
I guess the kids are off-limits just like Michelle was during the campaign? Besides the fact that they don’t give stump speeches, I mean.
World B. Free on January 26, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Funny how the First Family did not take issue with magazine covers prior to becoming the First Family.
I would think that they would be happy to stimulate the economy in any way possible.
nor on January 26, 2009 at 1:17 PM
What if they were FREE or government subsidized? Would that appease our new Overlords?
dc84123 on January 26, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Amen to that. The Obamas used the girls in their campaign in order to bolster his image as a young, fresh figure and they didn’t mind releasing photos of the girls first day at Sidwell in DC, printing a “private” letter to them in the newspaper, or showing them off at the inaugaration. The Obamas made the girls pop culture icons, so it’s kinda hypocritical to whine when a private company wants to capitalize off of that fame.
As for criticism of the girls, I think that they should be off limits from nasty comments and would hope that all conservatives stick to that rule as it makes us look petty. We want to differentiate ourselves from the DUmmies and be on moral high ground when they make ugly comments about our candidates’ children being drug addicts, ditzy party-girls, or sluts.
Illinidiva on January 26, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Actually, he did say something then. I think he only said something once, but still, he wasn’t silent on the issue.
Creepy sure, but no more so than all the other Obama crap. Inappropriate though? I don’t really see how. They are public figures, and it’s not really uncommon for public figures to have dolls, even children.
I don’t see how putting their likeness on a doll is any different from putting it in a magazine or a newspaper or any of the other multitude of places you can find their faces.
Now, if they were anatomically correct, then sure, I’d agree.
Esthier on January 26, 2009 at 1:20 PM
He does.
DaveC on January 26, 2009 at 1:21 PM
The DNC in conjunction with the MSM did the same exact thing with Palin’s kids.
leetpriest on January 26, 2009 at 1:21 PM
They are cute. Their daughters are very cute girls. They are the first daughters. I collect dolls. Won’t buy them though. At least they are not like Mommy Doll made my Fisher Price. The doll coo’s and gaga’s a few times, then says Islam is the light. And also mutters Satan is King. If they don’t do that then they are not harmful. I have a few black dolls. I love them.
sheebe on January 26, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Oh, so sad that “they consider it inappropriate to use the girls”. Your in the spotlight, get over it…
foxone on January 26, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Uh, never?
Buy Danish on January 26, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Sorry, I should have clarified:
The DNC in conjunction with the MSM did the same exact thing with Palin’s kids.
leetpriest on January 26, 2009 at 1:23 PM
I think that the Sasha and Malia dolls are less creepy than some of the Obama fan objects, especially the Obama posters in the social realist style.
Illinidiva on January 26, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Obama’s girls aren’t ugly.
Chelsey was.
Badger40 on January 26, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Public scrutiny will be with these two little girls from now until old age. The parents had better get used to it because this is what they signed on for. I’m guessing that nothing really makes that Michelle happy. She’s a malcontent. Living with her must be a real downer.
UnEasyRider on January 26, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Michelle is upset, but I don’t see any statements from Barack.
Does this mean he’s voting present?
MarkTheGreat on January 26, 2009 at 1:26 PM
I agree-but I think they need their own little Mao outfits.
Badger40 on January 26, 2009 at 1:26 PM
If Michelle is miffed NOW, then how do you suppose that she will react when the first “Mr. Bill” style video clip appears on YouTube starring the Sasha and Malia beanie babies?
My collie says:
CyberCipher on January 26, 2009 at 1:26 PM
At least someone’s being consistent. Ed, you were similarly outraged at Pepsi’s exploitation and capitalistic profit of Obama.
But Michelle Obama being upset at the exploitation of her daughters?!? Give me a break. The Obamas have exploited their daughters at every turn and talk out of both sides of their mouths–the girls are off limits, then they okay a family expose in a gossip rag; they’re off limits, then Obama publishes a “private letter” to his daughters. And these are cute little dolls! I could understand Michelle Obama’s outrage if, say, they were a part of the Bratz line, which would be sort of funny.
At least when the Clintons said Chelsea Clinton was off limits, they kept her out of the lime light and didn’t contradict themselves.
conservative pilgrim on January 26, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Doesn’t make what Rush said appropriate.
Esthier on January 26, 2009 at 1:27 PM
He didn’t call Chelsea Clinton an “ugly dog”, he said she was the White House dog.
I fail to see where Rush was incorrect in his comparison of Chelsea Clinton to a dog.
leetpriest on January 26, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Sure doesn’t.
Of course, then again, the democrats wanted to set the standard of politics. Here’s the standard, pot-shots at children.
leetpriest on January 26, 2009 at 1:30 PM
It’s a fine point here but how is a toy company using the names of the first children harming the Obama family in the least? How is it even intrusive to Sasha or Malia as they go live their highly sheltered life of posh exclusive schools, secret service agents, and media adoration whenever trotted out by their opportunistic parents?
highhopes on January 26, 2009 at 1:31 PM
True. Have to give them credit for that.
Esthier on January 26, 2009 at 1:31 PM
It wasn’t Limbaugh’s finest hour. The only thing wrong with Chelsea is that Hillary really needed to straighten her hair. She looks 100xs better now.
Illinidiva on January 26, 2009 at 1:31 PM
The Obama girls are very pretty girls. I hope he doesn’t. He didn’t say that about chelsea. She turned out to be not pretty but cute. It isn’t a child’s fault who their parents are. Is a shame to pick on children.
sheebe on January 26, 2009 at 1:31 PM
The dolls are adorable, and I think that I’d rather have my little daughter (if I had one) carry one of those around than a bratz doll. I think it’s a compliment to the Obama girls, personally.
The biggest gripe I have about it is that I’m quite certain that any dolls of the Bush girls would not be so complimentary.
Bob's Kid on January 26, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Michelle:
Suck it up, and shut up. Gov. Palin’s family was subject to unnecessary public attention and I didn’t hear anyone jumping to defend her privacy.
Ryan Gandy on January 26, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Canine-Americans don’t deserve that kind of comparison!
Face it, Chelsea Clinton was simply not the most attractive teen. To their credit, the Clintons did keep Chelsea completely out of the media. The Obama children have been used as props such as the their appearance with Michelle Obama at the Democrat convention.
highhopes on January 26, 2009 at 1:34 PM
So true. The Obamas have thin skin, huh? Can’t take the heat, then get out of the fire.
conservative pilgrim on January 26, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Good point there. They said a lot of hateful things about her children.
sheebe on January 26, 2009 at 1:35 PM
That was my point, too. The socialist President and First Lady are upset that someone wants to cash in on their celebrity.
Strike while the iron’s hot, I say! This fad ain’t gonna last!
crazy_legs on January 26, 2009 at 1:35 PM
I didn’t even know that Chelsea could speak until earlier this year, so you must give the Clintons credit for that. You never saw Chelsea in either the 1992 or 1996 campaign and I believe that Hillary was even angry when someone at the Democrat convention created “Vote for Chelsea’s dad” buttons.
Illinidiva on January 26, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Dude, what’s that about? You need to step off.
baldilocks on January 26, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Ty is gunning for some bailout money.
maineconservative on January 26, 2009 at 1:38 PM
It’s a bad idea for Ty to do this BUT. Creepy? Not so sure about that. Unless your talking about…
roux on January 26, 2009 at 1:39 PM
heh.
scalleywag on January 26, 2009 at 1:41 PM
If they made a Michelle doll it would look like a black T-Rex.
LtE126 on January 26, 2009 at 1:41 PM
I assume you mean anyone on the Left. That’s because the Left have no principles except that any method used to accrue power is okay.
That the Left is so low-down and immoral as to bring children into political battles shouldn’t be a surprise. What is a surprise is that many on the Right use the logic that we should do it also in retaliation. That tells observers that your so-called principles aren’t really that; they are commmodities to be bought and sold.
baldilocks on January 26, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Yeah. But, there is a difference here. The Bush daughters were college age at the time GWB came into office. The biggest hypocrisy came when the media acted like the two were the only college students who ever had alcohol under age.
highhopes on January 26, 2009 at 1:44 PM
The Obama girlz are only to be exploited by their parents!
jukin on January 26, 2009 at 1:44 PM
baldilocks on January 26, 2009 at 1:43 PM
That’s hardly it. There’s an old saying:
You reap what you sow.
Ryan Gandy on January 26, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Exhibit A-a link to a collection of Bush twins exploitation.
canditaylor68 on January 26, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Oh come on. You know as well as I do that if Chelsea was a cute kid she would’ve been trotted all over the place by the Clintons. I’d call it just as opportunistic as the Obamas trotting out their girls at every turn.
crazy_legs on January 26, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Free Enterprise? Michele should be upset the kids are not getting a piece of the action!
Mr. Joe on January 26, 2009 at 1:50 PM
What did those little girls sow? And it seems to me that you cut off the inconvenient part of that saying. If you’re going to quote Someone, give the context.
There’s another “saying”: “‘Vengeance is mine’ sayeth the Lord.”
baldilocks on January 26, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Yeah, that bothered me as well. I mean one of them went to UT. Even if she’d never touched a drink before, that’s not really a place where things like that are easily avoided.
People were unreal about it though. I even heard a story from a friend (of a friend who was the waitress) about when the twins went out to a restaurant, ordered a drink, and instead of merely checking her ID or saying, “no, I can’t serve you,” the waitress called the cops on one (as she didn’t recognize the other twin).
Esthier on January 26, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Their names aren’t secret, and thanks to MS-NBC, neither are their Secret Service code names.
Well, either the Secret Service leaked false names, or they’ve already changed them…
I R A Darth Aggie on January 26, 2009 at 1:54 PM
When you have had a free education on the US based on your skin color and then let corrupt politics make you a multimillionaire, it must be great to be able to worry about stuff like this.
I bet the first lady would like to abort these kids like all the problem ones she has worked so hard to eliminate.
Hening on January 26, 2009 at 1:55 PM
I think that’s an unfair accusation to make. She was an awkward child, but (from the little I’ve seen) she was a cute baby. The presidency wasn’t the first race Clinton ran, and yet there’s nothing to indicate that they exploited her when he ran for governor.
Esthier on January 26, 2009 at 1:59 PM
Exercised?
I do not think that word means what you think it means. Unless Mrs. Obama is running laps around the Messiah Mansion.
Professor Blather on January 26, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Yes, I thought that the overkill was ridiculous too. I’m the same age as Barbara and Jenna and remember doing the exact same things they did when I was in college. I was over in Barcelona at the time “studying” when I heard about the incident (studying = partying and drinking) and laughed at the overkill. One of the biggest revenue generators for college towns is busting underage students for drinking. At UIUC, the cops relished breaking up parties in order to make their ticket quota.
The whole incident strikes me as someone with a political vendetta against Dad more than anything else. Most waitress and bouncers will just take away the fake id and give the girls a scolding. Barbara and Jenna were kinda stupid to think that they were going to get away with fake ids, but they really just deserved their ids being taken away and posted on eBay, not the media frenzy that occurred.
Illinidiva on January 26, 2009 at 2:02 PM
Maybe the Obamas are hurt because they don’t get any of the royalties. That could be changed, I’m sure. Have your girl call my girl!
PattyJ on January 26, 2009 at 2:02 PM
Ty should have asked permission first. However, this pales in comparison to calling Chelsea ugly or implying that the Bush girls were a couple of boozers.
Bobbertsan on January 26, 2009 at 2:03 PM
The names are really symbolic more than anything. The Secret Service has more advanced security measures now, so they’re virtually meaningless.
Illinidiva on January 26, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Great! Send us your children’s names and we’ll make some action figures!
Cuz, you know – its not creepy. Or inappropriate. Not at all. I mean, heck, if you can’t steal a 7-year old child’s name and image and make a doll out of her, the terrorist have won.
Professor Blather on January 26, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Why is this any worse that some company silk screening Obama’s goofy mug on a 50 cent piece and selling it for $9.95 to the fawning masses.
BrianA on January 26, 2009 at 2:07 PM
I do.
Jim Treacher on January 26, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Heh, bitter or not, that about sums up how I feel.
As for Michelle, I’d like to ask her how it feels to have your children used in such a way that you think is wrong or inapropriate?
4shoes on January 26, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Again, maybe you can explain this, but how is it any different from using their images in magazines? Why is one an intrusion where the other is not?
Esthier on January 26, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Just because they are black plastic, does that make them the same as an image? Isn’t that racist? They look nothing like the daughters of the Affirmative Action first couple.
Hening on January 26, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Hey Michelle. Could have been worse. I baker in New York could have made cookies in their likeness.
Caper29 on January 26, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »