The posters went up last week, 14 in Union Station. On each of the large displays, a thought bubble rises up from a picture of a beautiful 8-year-old: "President Obama's daughters get healthy school lunches. Why don't I?"There's a difference between a toy marketer and a public health advocacy group (the latter making an important point on public policy), although the administration's response is typical: DON'T CRITICIZE THE ONE!!
A Washington nonprofit that advocates nutrition-policy reform paid $20,000 to get its message across and carefully maneuvered Metro's tangle of regulations to display its posters. Metro gave it a go -- but the White House did not, according to the group. Within 24 hours of the signs' appearance, the White House asked the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine to take down the ads, which feature Jasmine Messiah, a vegetarian who attends a Miami-Dade County public school that, she says, offers no vegetarian or vegan lunch options.
The Physicians Committee has declined to take down the posters.
PCRM President Neal Barnard, a nutrition researcher, says he received a phone call regarding the posters Aug. 4 (a day after they went up) from Associate Counsel Karen Dunn and Deputy Associate Counsel Ian Bassin.
"They're very nice people. I like them a lot," Barnard says. "But they called and said: Please take those down, you can't mention the kids and so forth. . . . They felt that mentioning the president's children was off-limits. They said [they're] not going to allow the use of their daughters as leverage."
The fact that the poster mentions the president's children has been the main point of contention, though neither the children's names nor their images appear. That reaction doesn't come as a complete surprise; when Ty Inc. marketed dolls in January named Sweet Sasha and Marvelous Malia, the first lady made her objections clear, and the toy company stopped using the girls' names. The First Lady's Office declined to comment for this story.
See also my earlier entry on the Obamas decision to sent their girls to the Sidwell Academy: "Moving on Up! Obama Girls to Attend Elite Private D.C. School."
The Healthy Lunches website is here, "Girl in Metro Ads Asks: 'President Obama's daughters get healthy school lunches. Why don't I?' "
Jake Tapper also has the story, "White House Objects to "School Lunch" Advocates' Poster Mentioning Obama Daughters." But see also Memeorandum.
4 comments:
The big question is, do you support the nutrition policy reform, or is this post and the banner above just a function of that ODS you suffer from?
It isn't about criticizing "the one," --(in fact, I don't see anyone saying President Obama opposes the policy change, and suspect it's more likely that the real fight is with people from the Republican party, who still worship at the feet of St. Ronald "Ketchup is a vegetable" Reagan.)-- it's about exploiting his kids for political gain.
I support the policy change, but not using the family of a politician to make this or any point, especially without the politician's permission. (I'm not even so crazy about politicians themselves using their kids as political pawns.) At the very least, parents should determine how much or little publicity their minor children receive. Sasha & Malia didn't run, and were not elected. Unless/until mom or dad puts them in this kinda spotlight, leave them out of it.
I think it's hilarious that conservatives cry out against mention of Palin's daughters in the news media, then say Obama is whining for demanding the privacy of his own.
Obama's kids get better food because he doesn't detest them enough to send them to public school.
Funny that it was okay to abuse Palin's family, yet it's not appropriate to likewise to the "Holy See."
Another question; Why are others not allowed to get vouchers so they may attend the same school as Obama's children?
Post a Comment