MOMania

By Theresa

January 29, 2009 7:52 AM | Link to this

Hey New Mom — Your quote about peanut butter has been on the front page since last night.

By jct

January 29, 2009 8:16 AM | Link to this

I think that this is terrible. I hope the Obama’s put their foot down. There children not public figures. I think Madison Avenue thinks that they can make a quick buck of the ‘first black family.’

Personally, I will not buy from any company that continues down this path.

It is a total invasion of privacy of those little girls.

By Cute Kids

January 29, 2009 8:17 AM | Link to this

The reason this trend didn’t happen with the Bush twins and ESPECIALLY with Chelsea Clinton is because they weren’t cute!

By new mom

January 29, 2009 8:36 AM | Link to this

Hey Theresa, I just saw that as I signed in this morning…how weird is that? I’m famous! ha ha ;)

By JJ

January 29, 2009 8:38 AM | Link to this

NewMom WOW!!! Can I get your autograph?

By new mom

January 29, 2009 8:43 AM | Link to this

Anything for you, JJ! It’s much prettier on paper though:

~~~~~NNNNNeeeeeewwwww MMMMMMMoooooooooommmmmmm~~~~~~~~~~~~

By new mom

January 29, 2009 9:06 AM | Link to this

Oh the humanity! I’ve been bumped for a strip club question! There went my 15 minutes. ;)

By JJ

January 29, 2009 9:16 AM | Link to this

You’ll always be famous to us!!!!!

By Becky

January 29, 2009 9:19 AM | Link to this

cute kids is right, it’s because these kids are so cute that people are trying to do this…I wouldn’t mind having a doll that looks like them, but that’s only because I like what I call rag dolls..

Not sure if that’s the right term, so hopefully no one takes offense to that..

By Theresa

January 29, 2009 10:03 AM | Link to this

I think the big problem on the dolls was that they named them the same thing and we’re making money off their names. (Although I believe they said they were not named for them — hmm??) I’m not sure there’s any legal recourse when it’s just using kids that look similar but you’re not trying to misrepresent that they are the actual girls.

New Mom — You were on the front all last night so you had hours upon hours of fame not just 15 minutes!

By Cammi317

January 29, 2009 10:11 AM | Link to this

Those dolls were adorable and Malia and Sasha are extremely pretty girls. HOWEVER, Ty should never have issued those dolls, with the same names, without seeking clearance from the First Family. That being said, as an observer I took it as a compliment that they thought the girls to be so beautiful that they wanted to capture them as dolls. As a parent, however, I would have lit into them with a fury.

By Becky

January 29, 2009 10:21 AM | Link to this

Amen Cammi…

By JJ

January 29, 2009 10:28 AM | Link to this

cammi I disagree. I believe they made those dolls to make money.

Yes, the girls are beautiful, but the Almighty Dollar is the reason.

By Michelle

January 29, 2009 11:01 AM | Link to this

I think it is a money making gimmick! Unless the parents agree, I think they should be pulled from the market. If they do agree, I think the girls should be given a percentage of the money just as in any other money making franchise! The lives of these poor little girls have change overnight. I’m sure they are going to have enough “intrusion” into their lives without the money grubbing businesses trying to ride on their coat tails! I think it’s pitiful!

By Cammi317

January 29, 2009 11:33 AM | Link to this

Michelle, I am with you on that one. The proceeds would generate a lovely trust for the girls.

JJ I do not disagree that Ty was in it for the money at the end of the day. But without the girls natural beauty the venture would not have been pursued. Homely doesn’t bring in money.

By oldcoach

January 29, 2009 12:32 PM | Link to this

re: mom v. coach

Since this blogger chose this media to state her claims, I’d challenge her to have the other witness’s come onto this blog, provide thier names and eyewitness accounts to support her version. If she cant provide this she should apologize and retract. At which point the AJC should fire her immediatly.

By CleverShrew

January 29, 2009 1:06 PM | Link to this

Oldcoach,

more like oldnews. Sounds like you are protesting a bit much for this coach. Are you he, perhaps?

By Theresa

January 29, 2009 2:14 PM | Link to this

Hey Guys - In light of our discussions of how the recession is affecting our families, I share this site, which is all the buzz on the Web. It is written by girlfriends of bankers — you know the bankers who have lost their jobs (and some of whom helped create the problem). Anyway they are young, live in the city and are (were in love). Their lives are very different than mine. It is an interesting read.

By Hey, old coach...

January 29, 2009 2:27 PM | Link to this

..give it a rest - that is what these blogs are for- one topic per day and then move on - everybody has done so, except you. If she still has problems with the coach I am sure she will get to the proper source for complaint. But, you need to let it go!!!!!

By Tiffany

January 29, 2009 2:31 PM | Link to this

I love the Obama girls and think that they are extremely lovely and represent great role models for America’s children. It certainly would do the world some good, and all the young girls and boys out there to get a peek into their new lives and newly found fame. There are going to be those who want to capture the qualities of the girls with models, ect. to push their products. As long as the ads, ect. are tasteful, I guess there would not be a problem with it. As a parent I suppose I wouldn’t like it…but then I’m not married to the President. In a way all that kind of goes with the territory doesn’t it? Especially when you have great looking children!

By WhoCares

January 29, 2009 2:40 PM | Link to this

Who would want anything that looked like Chelsea Clinton? She’s almost as ugly as Amy Carter

By DB

January 29, 2009 2:59 PM | Link to this

Well, you can’t blame advertisers for keeping their finger on the pulse of American’s interests, can you? So what, now a few more little African-American child models will be busier. shrug. They aren’t trying to pass them off as the President’s kids, they are just acknowledging that there’s a heightened awareness of the “cute” factor and are trying to work it to their advantage. Not much different from curly hair vs. straight hair. It’s just a fad — it will burn itself out. But I certainly hope the Obama kids don’t end up with a permanent press entourage like the Kennedy kids did. John Kennedy, Jr. spent his short life in the spotlight that never let up - he couldn’t even fail the bar exam in peace.

By Stacey

January 29, 2009 4:00 PM | Link to this

As a mother, I can understand and appreciate Mrs. Obama’s opposition to the dolls. I think the manufacturer should have asked permission before creating them, even if it really was meant as an honor to the girls/family. I don’t believe for 1 second that the resemblence and names are just a coincidence. Still, I would have bought these dolls for my goddaughter and maybe even a set for myself because I think they are beautiful dolls.

By Tiffany

January 29, 2009 4:08 PM | Link to this

Speaking of using models that look like the Obamas…has anyone seen the new Tropicana ads with the dad and his child? They sure look like President Obama and his daughter Malia. Tropicana claims it’s a coincidence. Yeah sure it is. They obviously had done the ad knowing people will think of the Obamas.

By FCM

January 29, 2009 7:35 PM | Link to this

I was very young but I recall there being stuff on about Amy Carter…including some dolls or something. Although most of her bad press (likewise with the Bush twins) was her own doing.

The press slammed poor Chelsea Clinton. I will never be a fan of her parents. Plus look at the genetic material God had to work with….she was never going to be runway model. However, I took her side on it, she was going through that horrible teen girl awkward stage in the public eye!!! Those reports should be ashamed.

The Bush twins were in college 8 years ago (they were 20!). Fact is they were way older then any of the other girls mentioned. They actually left the Obama girls a welcome note in the White House. (Didn’t see that in the blog yet).

I don’t care what the company of the dolls says….it was clearly cashing in on the Obama’s likeablity and as some one said ‘cute kids’. As to President and First Lady being upset…they need to get over it….there will be a rash of people naming their kids, animals, etc after all 4 of them. Should they do anything? Not about the dolls….now if Saturday Night Live mocks the kids or the press wants to print pictures and insults like it did with Chelsea—-I will champion the girls myself—that is just wrong.

As to buying the dolls? Probably for collector purposes…those dolls would be worth money one day.

By FCM

January 29, 2009 7:39 PM | Link to this

Are the Obama’s copyrighting or pattening the name…..you can call the doll whatever….Now granted some names are trademarked (Hannah) so maybe the Obama’s should do that?

By catlady

January 29, 2009 7:49 PM | Link to this

Equal time: I want a Bristol Palin (a la Dec 1 2007) doll. Wedding ring, apparently, optional.

By FCM

January 29, 2009 8:12 PM | Link to this

Catlady—-I would buy the Palin doll too for collection purposes……I have shelves of Barbies already…..

By jct

January 30, 2009 9:20 AM | Link to this

Obama can’t copyright his name because of his position.

Of course a company can call a doll any name they want, even Sasha and Malia.

I just personally think that children of politicians should be off limits. The parents are in the public eye not the children. The children should be allowed to make mistakes and learn from those mistakes without our judgment.

If Obama is president for 8 years then we will have to live through Malia’s ackward stage. Everyone goes through it. We (and the press) don’t need to make that transition any harder.

By FCM

January 30, 2009 10:24 AM | Link to this

jct I agreed with you already that the children themselves are off limits….Just not their names. Do I think that the sudden increase in advertising with first family look-a-likes is conincidental? NO

Then again some truck manufacturer (Ford?) showed a Bush look alike talking to ‘Barney’ the dog with some big guys in dark suits and sunglasses standing in mud.

By David S

January 30, 2009 12:49 PM | Link to this

Why would you not want to do this as an ad agency, etc. Everyone in the media and the majority of americans will believe anything that comes out of Obama’s mouth without question or thought. Look alikes of his kids will likely engender the same passive worship.