I agree with Michelle Obama.
There. I said it — something I thought I’d never say.
American kids are overweight, to such an extent that this is threatening to become a national crisis.
Then again, I also agree with Nancy Reagan, Lady Bird Johnson, and Laura Bush.
Because every First Lady of the United States adopts a non-controversial pet project. Ranging from Nancy’s Reagan’s “Just Say No” anti-drug campaign to Lady Bird Johnson’s Beautification program, it is a First Lady’s traditional role to promote some form of public betterment with which we can all agree.
So it’s not really a surprise that Michelle Obama has adopted a cause that just about everyone in the country thinks is worthwhile. That’s what First Ladies do. A more relevant question is: How does her non-controversial pet project stack up against earlier First Ladies’ non-controversial pet projects? Now that Michelle has declared her agenda, the time has come for an historical overview of First Lady initiatives, to see if Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” child obesity campaign is likely to be a flop or a success compared to earlier projects.
Eleanor Roosevelt is often credited with starting the tradition of activist First Ladies; unlike her predecessors, she took an aggressive role in promoting important policies during her husband’s administration. But considering that her level of involvement was so deep and wide-ranging across so many important social issues of the day, and also considering that her two immediate successors (Bess Truman and Mamie Eisenhower) retreated back to old-fashioned non-political First Lady status, the modern era of First Lady Pet Projects more properly starts with Jackie Kennedy and her drive to completely refurbish the White House.
Starting then, all First Ladies have dabbled throughout their tenures in a wide range of secondary feel-good social causes — for example, Barbara Bush helped AIDS awareness, and Rosalynn Carter became an advocate for refugees — but this essay concerns itself exclusively with those causes which are publicly announced as the First Lady’s primary initiative (literacy for Barbara, mental health for Rosalynn, and so on).
First Lady Pet Projects: The Rankings
The following chart ranks each First Lady’s pet project according to how socially significant it was and how successful she was in bringing it to fruition.
Two First Ladies on this chart (Bess Truman and Mamie Eisenhower) did not really have any pet projects worth noting, while two others (Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton) were what I call “Power First Ladies” whose activities and political involvement were so important that they didn’t really count as “pet projects” but rather were essential components of their husbands’ administrations. Because of this, all four have been excluded from the final rankings.
Although the chart starts in 1933 to be thorough, the list of First Ladies participating in the rankings actually begins proper with Jackie Kennedy.
The column on the right totals up each First Lady’s “Pet Project Rating” by assessing (based on my research) how significant (on a scale of 1 to 10) her pet project was to the nation at large, and multiplying it by how successful she was in bringing it off (again based on my research).
Following this chart, below, I discuss each First Lady’s pet project in a little more detail, and then place Michelle Obama’s new initiative in historical context.
A note on the background colors:
= Power First Lady (excluded from rankings)
= Non-participating First Lady (excluded from rankings)
|
First Lady (tenure) |
Primary cause (Secondary cause) |
Significance x Success (1 – 10 scale) (1 – 10 scale) = Pet Project Rating (1 – 100 scale) |
|
|
Eleanor Roosevelt (1933-1945) |
National policy |
|
|
Bess Truman (1945-1953) |
none | – |
|
Mamie Eisenhower (1953-1961) |
none | – |
|
Jackie Kennedy (1961-1963) |
White House refurbishment | 1sig. x 9suc. = 9 |
|
Lady Bird Johnson (1963-1969) |
Beautification ( + Project Head Start) |
5sig. x 8suc. = 40 |
|
Pat Nixon (1969-1974) |
Volunteerism | 4sig. x 3suc. = 12 |
|
Betty Ford (1974-1977) |
Equal Rights Amendment ( + breast cancer awareness) |
5sig. x 3suc. = 15 |
|
Rosalynn Carter (1977-1981) |
Mental Health | 4sig. x 5suc. = 20 |
|
Nancy Reagan (1981-1989) |
Drug Abuse | 6sig. x 6suc. = 36 |
|
Barbara Bush (1989-1993) |
Literacy | 5sig. x 2suc. = 10 |
|
Hillary Clinton (1993-2001) |
National policy |
|
|
Laura Bush (2001-2009) |
Education | 5sig. x 5suc. = 25 |
|
Michelle Obama (2009- ) |
Childhood Obesity | 6sig. x ?suc. = ? |
And so, looking at the final column, we can see that Lady Bird Johnson and Nancy Reagan had the two most successful First Lady pet projects, in terms of both social significance and eventual efficacy. Before we consider how Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity drive might rank, let’s take a closer look at each First Lady and her cause.
First Lady Pet Projects: A brief historical overview
Eleanor Roosevelt completely revolutionized the role of First Lady. Unlike her predecessors (and even her immediate successors), she was ambitious, educated, strong-willed and extremely opinionated, in public and in private. She jumped with both feet into a high-profile role and used her fame to promote a large array of significant policy issues. She vigorously promoted civil rights for African-Americans, encouraged women’s empowerment and feminism, led the charge for the New Deal programs which reshaped the American economy, championed labor unions and workers’ rights, helped troop morale and civil defense programs during WWII, and throughout her tenure staged an astounding 348 press conferences, far more than even any president in history, much less any First Lady. And to top it off, she had what was essentially the world’s first blog, a nationally syndicated daily column entitled “My Day” which chronicled her every activity. Considering all this, Eleanor had no one particular “pet project,” but was rather a one-woman branch of government, pushing not just her husband’s policies but espousing many of her own as well. As such, her career as First Lady must be judged on a different scale than those of the single-issue First Ladies who followed.
Bess Truman famously loathed the spotlight, and mostly lived a private life as First Lady, never really embracing any particular issue. Mamie Eisenhower also never adopted any public cause (aside from a brief period promoting awareness of heart disease after Ike suffered a heart attack), and was instead content in her role as White House hostess. Both of them, consequently, are also excluded from the final pet project rankings.
Jackie Kennedy, for all her popularity as a fashion icon, eschewed altruistic campaigns; her sole initiative as First Lady was to refurbish and redecorate her home, which of course just happened to be the White House. Although this helped further public interest in the glamorous “Camelot” image of the Kennedy family, her efforts had no direct social benefit on the nation at large.
Lady Bird Johnson changed all that. Although not as celebrated in the national consciousness as are many of her successors, it was Lady Bird who set the standard for First Ladies’ political and social engagement. Right out of the gate she encouraged “women’s activism,” promoting the proto-feminist notion that American women were competent and had an equal role to play in society. She also helped to launch and publicize Project Head Start, which provided nutritional and health assistance to poor children and families.
But Lady Bird is best remembered for what is likely the most unexpected yet most successful of all First Lady pet projects: “Beautification,” as she called it. Beautification was Lady Bird’s catch-all term describing her efforts to make America a more attractive place. Considering the innumerable social crises of the 1960s which a First Lady could have addressed, in retrospect it seems a very peculiar choice to focus on the nation’s physical beauty as the one overriding issue. And yet, she somehow made it work. Lady Bird led the charge for blight removal, flower and tree planting, National Park improvements, air pollution control, new landscaping, neighborhood trash pickups, and numerous other initiatives involving environmentalism, conservation, and urban renewal. Most controversial was her personal legislative bill, the Highway Beautification Act, which got passed after her husband twisted more than a few arms in Congress. The United States, as seen by most travelers in those days through car windows on cross-country drives, appeared to be little more than a long succession of garish billboards, junkyards, tourist traps, dilapidated gas stations, and tacky advertisements. Realizing that the view from the highway was the view that mattered most, Lady Bird pushed through a sweeping law which sought to transform our gritty highways into scenic drives, doing away with all the unsightly detritus of unregulated development. And while the Highway Beautification Act subsequently faced substantial political opposition (click on the cartoon on the right to see a particularly amusing critique), it — along with Lady Bird’s other Beautification projects — helped to give America a much-needed facelift after decades of neglect.
“Volunteerism” is most often cited as Pat Nixon‘s primary personal initiative, and she did indeed promote the notion that people — women in particular — should volunteer their time in nonprofit activities to help communities and the less fortunate. She toured the country highlighting noteworthy volunteer groups, and helped the National Center for Voluntary Action. However, Pat was also busy in many other fields, such as helping disadvantaged youth in the Washington DC area, making the White House accessible to the disabled, and numerous day-to-day good works that received little press coverage during her husband’s tumultuous tenure. And much of her time was spent criss-crossing the globe and serving as an unofficial goodwill ambassador during the countless presidential overseas trips of the Nixon administration. Even so, it can’t be said that her drive to popularize volunteerism was particularly successful, because her efforts were overshadowed by an unending series of national crises and major historical events during the Nixon era.
Most younger Americans assume that Betty Ford‘s pet project as First Lady was the treatment of alcoholism and drug addiction; the Betty Ford Clinic, after all, bears her name. But she did not confront her own alcoholism and become an icon in the recovery movement until 1978 — after she was no longer First Lady. During her comparatively brief stint in the White House, she instead mostly focused on trying to get the Equal Rights Amendment ratified in state legislatures. She also became a pioneering spokeswomen for breast cancer awareness, after her own diagnosis and mastectomy in 1974. Since her efforts on behalf of the ERA did little to prevent its eventual defeat, Betty’s brave decision to speak out and bring attention to the then-taboo topic of breast cancer is most likely her most noteworthy achievement as First Lady.
Rosalynn Carter poured much energy into the President’s Commission on Mental Health, which with her help produced a massive report based on years of investigation, recommending a complete overhaul of how the government treats and helps people with mental illness. The report formed the basis of the Mental Health Systems Act, in support of which Rosalynn testified before the Senate and which become law in 1980.
(As an inappropriate aside: While researching this article I’ve been uncovering many pictures of the First Ladies in their younger years, and have come to the conclusion that, if the rankings were instead based on looks rather than accomplishments…Most people would agree that Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy was the most attractive First Lady while she was actually First Lady, but Rosalynn Smith Carter was the cutest while growing up and most attractive as a young woman; Nancy Davis Reagan comes in a close third as the only First Lady to build a career on her visual appeal. Jackie has an advantage in this area due to being the youngest First Lady of the modern era.)
Nancy Reagan will forever be associated with the slogan “Just Say No,” which was the catchphrase she coined for her drug abuse prevention campaign of the 1980s. The massive publicity — both positive and negative — surrounding Nancy’s Just Say No campaign far eclipsed the notice given to any previous First Lady pet projects. On one hand, the sustained media blitz definitely helped her vigorous anti-drug message to penetrate the national consciousness, and thousands of Just Say No anti-drug groups were founded across the country (and even worldwide). And while drug abuse during the Reagan era did decline sharply after raging out of control for most of the ’60s and ’70s, it’s not clear whether the decline was due exclusively to Nancy’s efforts or more due to a general turn toward conservativism and traditional values in middle America during those years. Unlike previous First Lady pet projects, Just Say No was savagely mocked by Reagan’s critics as simple-minded and insulting, since it didn’t fully address the supposed underlying social and physical causes of drug abuse and addiction. If a heroin addict could simply “just say no,” then he wouldn’t be an addict, would he? Even so, her campaign did seem to dampen casual drug experimentation among young people, even if it didn’t necessarily do much to help hardcore addicts.
Barbara Bush is the only First Lady to have spent 12 years with the same pet project — in this case, literacy — because she had already adopted it as her cause when she was Second Lady (the vice president’s wife) for eight years. She sponsored various literacy programs throughout her tenure, and was certainly well-intentioned about a problem that is indeed a serious one — but unfortunately the social causes of illiteracy are far too deep and intractable to be cured by anyone in what is essentially still after all a ceremonial role; studies released after the Bush I presidency showed that rates of illiteracy had if anything gotten worse over time and have continued a worsening trend ever since. So, alas, despite noble efforts, Barbara could do little to really succeed with her pet project, since causes like the downward slump of public education coupled with skyrocketing immigration of non-English speakers completely overwhelmed the First Lady’s efforts.
Hillary Clinton is a special case. Like Eleanor Roosevelt, she was not content to relegate herself to the subservient and mostly symbolic role of the President’s docile wife who arranges the seating at state dinners. Nor was she content to simply use the publicity that naturally comes with her position to promote this or that agreeable cause. Instead, she was so deeply involved with her husband’s administration that the two were dubbed “co-presidents”, or even “Billary,” by pundits. One could say that her primary public role focused on health care initiatives and women’s issues, but behind the scenes she was also involved in every level of national policy-making. It’s not really possible to assess her personal projects without assessing the success of the Clinton presidency as a whole. Because of this, I have excluded Hillary (along with Eleanor Roosevelt) from the “Pet Project” rankings, because their activities were far more significant than just mere pet projects.
Laura Bush has degrees in education and library science, and once worked as a schoolteacher, so her focus as First Lady naturally was on education, and especially reading and literacy for children. She founded the National Book Festival; defended the No Child Left Behind Act, a bill to improve education nationwide; advocated for improved teacher salaries and introduced various teacher training and recruitment programs; helped to push through federal policies benefiting librarians; and fought for childhood literacy programs both in the U.S. and abroad. The jury is still out as to how much American education improved during the Bush years and to what extent Laura was responsible, but each of her individual policy efforts was successful in and of itself, so they must have had some cumulative effect.
And so we come to Michelle Obama. She had already been focusing on children’s nutrition during the first year of her tenure, but her pet project became official just a few days ago when she announced the creation of Let’s Move, a nationwide drive to combat childhood obesity. Now, obviously, there’s no way to judge the long-term success of her pet project, because it just started. In fact, we likely won’t have any conclusive data about trends in childhood obesity rates in the post-2010 era until long after Obama has left office; these kinds of studies take years to conduct. So the second half of her equation — the “success” of her pet project — will have to remain a question mark for now.
But we can assess the first variable: how significant an issue it is. And here I can say that I think Michelle made a good choice, because not only is childhood obesity a national epidemic, but it is very relevant to the overriding policy issue of the day: health care. Obese babies often become obese children, and obese children, statistically speaking, tend to become obese adults. And as I discussed in an earlier essay about health care, it is obesity (and the choices which lead to obesity) which is partly responsible for the health care crisis in the first place. Obesity-related ailments (such as diabetes and heart conditions) are expensive to treat and are therefore a major cause of skyrocketing health care costs — despite being entirely preventable. If Michelle miraculously does manage to eliminate childhood obesity, she (not her husband) may in the long run be the one to resolve our national heath care dilemma. But that’s a very very big “if.”
Michelle’s “Let’s Move” agenda has elicited a variety of responses already, some purely partisan, some based on reason. Rushing to Michelle’s defense was conservative columnist Meghan Cox Gurdon, whose Washington Examiner piece entitled “First lady’s anti-obesity campaign makes sense” lays out the rationale for supporting the “Let’s Move” agenda. However, not everybody is on board with the program: PajamasTV pundit Joe Hicks issued a scathing critique of Michelle’s hypocrisy, pointing out that she by her own admission made a personal decision to improve her kids’ nutrition — and yet insists on a nanny-state government program to dictate to supposedly ignorant poor people how to feed their kids and run their lives. Hicks convincingly argues that family nutrition decisions are best left to parents, not to government bureaucracy.
Michelle has a big head start in the pet project rankings, because her chosen cause has a high significance rating, a “6″ out of 10 — the highest of any First Lady initiative (tied with Nancy Reagan’s anti-drug abuse drive).
Setting aside partisan bickering: How successful do you think Michelle’s anti-obesity drive will be? Is it the role of the government to intervene in family nutritional choices? Should the government become a nanny state in those areas where the actual nannies themselves are falling down on the job? And is fighting childhood obesity the hidden solution to our health care crisis, with a chance to succeed where Obamacare failed?
It is a good cause but a bad roll model. Michelda Thunder Thighs needs to do something about that megabutt before kids will take her seriously.
No seriously.. it is more…. “do as I say . not do as I do”, from the wagu eating , “you need to sacrifice, so others can have some pie” crew in the whitehouse.
In my opinion, Michelle is cheating, playing with a stacked deck as it were. She has positioned herself to take credit for something that is going to happen regardless of her efforts.
In the coming years the fiscal policies that her husband is relentlessly pursueing will do far more to combat childhood obesity than any awareness campaign by the First Lady.
I think that you can go ahead and give Michelle a 10 for her success rating, it’s a safe bet that the next generation is going to grow a little leaner than the last one.
Shelly strikes me as an elitist parvenu who is in her element when she can dictate to the masses what they should do, when they should do it, how they should do it and why they should do it. I for one do not want or need this or any government getting into my personal decisions about my family. And FYI, I’ve raised two sons who seem to be doing fine, healthy, not overweight, have an active lifestyle. We even go to the community pool together. And imagine, I did it all without the government helping me.
Michelle’s build is due to her heritage. Although in all the snapshots we see of her, i have thought she was “expecting”…
I think she will be a good role model for the inner city schools.
Haha I lie…
If those mamas aren’t getting up and fixin breakfast for the kids, do you think they can be talked into it??? nnnooooooooooo!!! How about dinner??? even on welfare and wic you can have decent food..and greasy foods or fast foods are not what I had in mind.
Funny a few years back we had everything cooked at home and didn’t have near the problems we seem to have now.
I think this obesity “crisis” is a big beat up. In reality, there are “fat zones” dominated by single mothers on welfare for some funny reason.
Although there are always exceptions to rules, fatherlessness and fat kids are very good friends. Why should we be taxed more, or mothered by the nanny statists, from Washington to Canberra?
I also wonder if Michellecan judge obese children, then why can’t I measure her? In my view, she needs to work on some areas. Her buttocks are too big. There, I said it.
I am old school. First Lady.s and the Presidents kids are usually hands off. Only the far left and the loony right get to attact them.
However, I must make an exection in this article. Well written and very well thought out !!
Thank You And it is nice to see that most americans not only see the sexy side of this new first lady, but also the brainy side and down to earth side. Something that has been lacking for so many years.
Lets face it…with the exception of hillary…the the sun has not shined on the bright side of a womans brain since Elanor.s reign in the White House has it?
Best we go was the hippie thing when Lady Bird and Nixons old Lady was gettin high while their husbands piled the bull on our country for so many years…
Anyway, nice article…
Thank You !
Zombie this is an excellent, well written and researched article.
A few thoughts.
Michelle has tackled a tough issue. She gets some respect for me for going head first in what might be characterized as a ‘war on fat kids’. She took a difficult and very real problem as her project.
As if there wasn’t already enough for an overweight adolescent to deal with…now the government is on your ass.
Problem I see is that those already alienated may be further driven to despair. This is not a job for pundits and policial powerhouses. American obesity is a family and cultural problem. She might make a difference but that would require a deft hand.
I think much analysis thus far is superficial and politicaly driven. Overweight kids are not superficial nor driven by politics. Correction…middle school politics are way tougher than the beltway.
I support the goal.
I question her ability to lead.
(prayer) May she help people to have happy, helpful, productive lives.
Spindok
This is very serious stuff. Fatty’s produce lots more CO2, which, as you know, is the driving force of global warming, er climate change. Viewed from this perspective, our current economic tsunami is a blessing in disguise. Poverty is the handmaiden of starvation. See, there is always a silver lining. Thank you, Obam-a-san.
By the way, is it me, or is Michelles hair finish with shellac????
First obesity issue she needs to solve is her fat head!
“@ 5. Poor Citizen:
Only the far left ”
Translation: Only democrats, the DNC, obama, teachers unions, public service unions(SEIU), ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, most print media, Hollywood,the U.N. .. and of course one Poor poor Citizen. Get to attack them.
Did I miss any from the far looney left?
This is a much more well-thought-out, reasoned, nuanced discussion of First Ladies and their pet projects than Joe Hicks’ article, which I thought frankly silly and ridiculously over the top. It looked as if he was trying desperately to find something negative to say about Michelle Obama’s program, and so he came up with this nanny state issue. He’s wrong about childhood nutrition, too: parents, left to their own devices, have fed their kids junk food, and the result is a lot of kids who are overweight. The solution, of course, isn’t a government program, but some sort of education, a campaign like the “Just Say No” one, isn’t beyond the pale. The woman’s trying to do something constructive, here…why attack her before she’s really even gotten started?
As for the other campaigns, in another comment on Hicks’ page, I got Nancy Reagan’s wrong (I remembered her as literacy-minded, when of course that was Barbara Bush) but remembered correctly LadyBird’s. I think this gives you an idea of how effective the campaigns were: Reagan’s and Bush’s were essentially futile, but LadyBird made good progress. Interesting food for thought.
I’m totally OK with Michelle’s Childhood Obesity project. I also think Laura Bush was a fantastic, modest, and humble first lady.
Gee and here I thought Michelle’s “mission” (as of last year) was help for military families. (http://www.usnews.com/news/obama/articles/2009/03/26/michelle-obama-makes-military-families-her-mission.html) I think she had a big photo op and then just dumped the whole idea. Let’s hope for her new cause that she at least manages to read Taubes’ book “Good Calories, Bad Calories” so she can learn how badly the government has managed obsesity as a pulbic cause in the past (with misinformation and specious studies on how we become obese)
Well,I really don’t think most American families need dietary advice from someone who’s own gluteus maximus compares favorably to a caboose on the Illinois Central RR
Ok, when “the Queen of thin” starts to talk about the real problems of obesity:
No safe places for kids to play
Healthy food too expensive
Adults living their lives vicariously through children sports
YMCA’s and other sports venues too expensive for most families
Both parents have to work so there is no time to do any but go home eat and everyone is too tired to do anything healthy
……then I might listen to her.
These are less lifestyle choices than just the way things are. There are only so many hours in a day and when you don’t get home until 5:30/6:00 a healthy meal is normally out of the question. So, Ms One how are you going to fix that? How are you going to make a bag of oranges cost under $2.00, or get mom’s back in the home to make those healthy meals, or keep the creepers, molesters, kidnappers et al off the streets. Tell us oh wisest of the wise, oh smartest person in the world. We are waiting breathlessly for your pronouncement or edict or command. Really. Make a difference, I dare you, I double dog dare you.
So here I am.
You Quears.
This white man wants to say how right we are being part of what we really are
u strange brews….
She’s twice the size of her husband. She doesn’t disguise her downright meanness very well.
You may extrapolate from there.
spindoc and DavidN,
I liked your comments. I too think that there are cultural issues involved that must be very carefully addressed. I don’t think Michelle is likey to do this effectively.
One point that is never mentioned in the overweight discussion is how the feminist depiction of housewives may have affected eating habits. It used to be expected that women would cook for their families and so families developed traditions of recipes and menus that were passed down. When careers bcame the desired goal for girls, these skills and traditions sort of stagnated. I know quite a few younger women who can’t cook at all. You could give them a bushel of potatoes, heads of cabbage, apples, etc. and they simply wouldn’t be able to give more than one recipe for each. Please don’t think this means it is wrong for women to have a career. I just think that perhaps we threw away certain traditions that may have been useful and didn’t worry about finding a substitute.
One other element that needs to be considered is the emotional. Kids can associate foods with family moments and choose those foods throughout their lives because this is what we always ate on my birthday. So I think the way a kid is introduced to food and the effort of the parent in making eating part of a family tradition can affect what a child perceives a the normal way to eat.
Dont forget that I am white.
I dont care about you. Just because you are queer ok?
I am normal. and you are abnormal
remember that
ok?
so my life style choices are mine alone, your lifestyle choices are yours alone…ok?
so eat me…
Encouraging kids to move? Great. Bringing actual physical education back to schools? Great too. Public awareness campaign on healthier food? Great. Legislating what people eat? Not great. If I want a damn cheeseburger, that’s my business. I also think health insurance companies should be allowed to charge more for fat and obese people. Make your choices, but pay for them yourself.
But, don’t get me started on her “organic gardening”, where she wears italian leather boots that put more carbon in the air getting here than she saves not going to the store for veggies. I have, actually, come to the conclusion that growing your own anything costs more than buying. We still do it though, it tastes better and is educational and fun for the kids. Store-bought tomatoes just aren’t worth eating, ya’ll. And yard-bird eggs are AMAZING!
Seanmahair-I can help you with a few of your issues: there ARE safe places for kids to play, unless maybe you live in an inner city. Kids just don’t get abducted by strangers. Your kid would have to stay outside alone for something like 2000 YEARS to have a statistical chance of that happening. Maybe if we educated parents about THAT, kids could play outside again. Healthy food isn’t more expensive. Cheetos are around $3 a bag. I just paid $.88 for a 2 lb bag of apples. You just have to look. And both parent’s don’t HAVE to work (usually). It just requires a lifestyle change many aren’t willing to do. Cheaper cars, maybe just one car. Fewer clothes. No cell phones. No 50 inch plasma. No meals out. No McMansions. Bargain-shopping. I do it. Many more could. And my kids are thin. So, coincidentally enough, am I, and my hubby.
Most of the first ladies have chosen excellent pet projects and made lasting contributions. I would give all the ladies from Texas higher marks and I absolutely adored Pat Nixon. And speaking of Pat, it was always clear the high regard Dick had for her and I’ll never forget the depth of his sorrow at her funeral, or for that matter, Nancy’s at Ronnie death. I think all of the ladies listed have done the most important thing, they helped their husbands deal with a tough, tough job and shielded their kids.
Back on topic, it’s too early to tell how much progress will be made with the recently launched project. I’d like to hear more results from the schools that are putting PE before lunch and whether that makes a difference.
“18. Poor Citizen:’
“On a boat in the middle of a raging sea,
She would make a scene for it all to be
Ignored.
And wouldn’t you be bored?
Strange brew — killin’ what’s inside of you.”
Poor Citizen: You start by saying hands off first ladies, then you end by trashing all first ladies since Eleanor (except the brilliant Hillary). You should here what the Secret Sevice have to say. They absolutely loved Laura and Barbara Bush. They catagorized them as bright and extremely classy. That is not what they thought of Hillary. She was crass and downright mean. Intersteing that so far they think highly of Michelle.
Poor Citizen: By the way, judging from your last few comments, you need to watch your blood pressure. You may want to go out for a nice run and calm down.
Trigreek, u better watch yerself honney
im might be a black lady that might bitchslap ur white butt..
rememer that
ok?
Not much about the Obamas can I say I admire. But I respect the choices Mrs. Ob has made for her children. However, unfortunately she falls back into the rut she and her husband are creating for this nation: trying to dictate policy for the lives of private US citizens. There is NO justification or rationale for governmental interference in decisions and lifestyles families make and maintain for themselves. Here is where Mr. and Mrs. Ob are WAAAYYYYY out of line, and where I cease to listen to anything they have to say. At THIS point, someone who can grasp their attention needs to tell the obamas to “live and let [others] live [their own lives]“. Somehow they DESPERATELY need to learn this , if they want to build any tenure in the White House.
I think the obesity program will be as successful as Michelle’s organic garden she planted over the septic tank – kind of prophetic of husband’s first year as President.
Somebody go buy that woman another $500.00 pair of tennis shoes to dig.
The sooner she is back in Chi town at her 300k+ “highly critical” no one else can do job the better.
She is as fake as a 3 dollar bill.
The press has reworked her image rather well over the past 6 months haven’t they.
I’m not forgetting what she has said back when she thought she could get away with it.
Poor Citizen: I provide you with some advise to support your health, and you threaten me? You have to love the left. And you know I am white because…..?
I have to admit, I messed that last one up. I like u guys and i love my country
ok? so eat me and stop trying to be american ok?
ok?
u bone heads….
Trgreek.. I dont know who u are and I dont care
I am a left winger, …my family works for a living and we dont give a shit who you are… however I want you to know one thing
kiss my hard workin ass, ok?…
I want you to kiss my ass…
can you read this?
??
kiss my ass
ok?
???
Most Americans see the “sexy” side of The Belle? Guess I’ve only seen the “nag” side – nnnnnnnnneigh
I don’t think Michelle is a good role model or moral scold.
She is hoping IMO that her ego will be gratified by compliance of those too stupid to make good nutritional decisions and defeat this “crisis”. If the sheeple are uncooperative, then Queen Michelle will drive to enact punitive measures (such as soda taxes) to ensure compliance of the sheeple with her dreams. Of course such measures will land most heavily on those at the lower end of the affluence and intellectual spectrum, those she espouses to love the most, but as Bill Maher says, Americans are generally “too dumb to undertand the issues”.
I think he and the Queen are on the same intellectual plane.
BTW, Michelle’s play that obesity prevents kids from taking positions in the military…there is a relevant quote.
“A man cannot achieve his highest utility except in service to the state”
–A. Hitler, 1937
No wonder her additions to WH library are so socialist in their orientation.
How hilarious to watch moonbat ‘Poor Citizens’ blog meltdown. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving poster.
Oh how I hope that your next article will be about something closer to relevance. Like your Barbie collection.
I can nail down childhood obesity to one thing: Nobody lets their children walk home from school anymore. Can Michelle fix that?
Not shellac. Super Glue.
Michelle’s “campaign” is predictably not what it seems. She doesn’t want to simply educate parents and children and try to persuade them to get more fit. She wants to use the government to:
1. Funnel money to her union buddies who are in charge of the school lunch program, etc.
2. Force food store chains to open up new locations in unprofitable, crime-ridden neighborhoods.
3. Play racial politics, by continuing to propagate the myth of the societal injustice done to poor, black children.
Her “good intentions” are simply a fig leaf for the typical leftist ambitions we’ve all come to know and loath.
I expect that America’s new Fat Czar will be just as ineffective as the rest of Obama’s busybody czars.
Michelle Obama says kids are fat. Well, yeah, a lot of them are. I agree with her on that—who could argue?
As a Pet First Lady Project, though, “childhood obesity” is basically making a lot of noise about sticking a bandaid on a leprosy sore. After all, why are kids fat? They’re fat because:
1) They eat too much;
2) They don’t move around much;
3) Much of what they eat is garbage.
Part of this has to do with what at first appears to be lousy parenting—stuffing the kids with junk instead of telling them “no,” and encouraging a TV-and-computer lifestyle which is highly sedentary. It also has to do, however, with the fact that in inner-city neighborhoods it’s safer to keep the kids indoors than it is to let them roam around outside, where they could be beaten up, coerced into joining a gang, tempted by drugs, or catch a stray bullet.
Talking about “obesity” as the problem is a way of deflecting any notice from the fact that much of this problem occurs in precisely those areas that have received attention for the past 40 years by “community organizers” like the First Lady’s husband, and that these areas are social sinkholes. The blubber is merely the most visible outer layer; talking about it as though it were the problem is not addressing a problem, but a way of masking and deflecting recognition of the pathologies that have been allowed to flourish there.
Fantom #2 is with my opinion on the matter.
This is coming from a woman that of she wore a pant suit her thighs would cause a fie when she moves!
I see these pointless attempts at ‘caring’ to be taken up by Jillian Micheals, the irritatingly ponytailed Tony Little or other ACTUAL PHYSICALLY HEALTHY people.
Though the responsibility ultimately befalls to the parent(s).
The commenter who said ‘healthy food is too expensive’ is nonsense. If parents learn how to make things from scratch (bread, oatmeal, healthy fresh meat, chicken.,) rather than pre-cooked, 90 second garbage rice, preservative packed soups, sugary salads (I home brew, in the process making unique stouts) etc., and ask the kids to assist in the process, perhaps discussing their school work as well – we wouldn’t need some out-of-touch First lady espousing what she thinks is best..
A little under ten years ago, the obesity horse went galloping down the thin-American-children trail as, simultaneously,
various national, state and locally sourced fight childhood obesity programs were initiated. So Michelle is very late
to the party, and we all realize that all the good that’s already been accomplished she’s ready to take credit for.
The fact is, the train has left the station, and now Michelle, because obesity has a high concern and awareness ranking due to the
in place programs, wants to jump aboard and gobble up all the credit, while possibly helping her husband stop his approval numbers from bleeding.
Actually, I hesitate to criticize Michelle because, number one, she is the first lady and number II, President Obama sternly has told his
mainstream press that, when it comes to criticism and negative media attacks, his wife and children are off limits.
Since Seth McFarlane is a big Obama supporter, I felt that both Obama and Michelle would realize they’d better criticize the Family Guy episode that
made fun of the Sarah Palin family, trying to get at Sarah through Trig, her Downs Syndrome child. But, surprisingly, not a peep
out of them. Which is worrisome because a lot of people believe this goes way beyond the bounds of decency, reminding me of the time
about six months ago that David Letterman joked on his show that Sarah’s 14 year old daughter went to a Yankee game only to ”
be impregnated by Yankees star Alex Rodriguez.
I’m also reminded that just after the inaugural David Letterman made what I thought was an unseemly joke; that when he first saw
Michelle walking down the street in her bright yellow dress that his first instinct was to hail a cab.
I’m also told that these jokesters like Letterman and McFarlane on Family Guy are equal opportunity offenders. Yet, I’m loathe to
turn on the TV next week and watch a family guy episode where, say, Obama is sitting in a study reading the Saul Alinsky book, “Rules
for Radicals”when he hears what sounds like the family dog, Bo, drinking out of the across-the-hall toilet. That distinctive lap, lap lap sound.
Hearing Sasha and Malia nearby, pretty Muslim names for cute as a button little girls, Barack calls to them and when they appear, bright
eyed and bushy tailed, their father asks them to stop “Bo” from drinking out of the toilet. So they take a few steps across the hall only to come back seconds to tell their father that “It’s not Bo drinking from the toilet. I guess mommy got real thirsty.”
The moral to the story is this, Mr. President. If you’re going to turn a blind eye to one of your most avid supporters degrading the Palin (a political rival) family and, in particular, their Downs Syndrome little boy, then guess who becomes fair game. Right.
Consider this a shot across the bow. You and Rahm and David can joke about “retards” all you want, but realize there’s going to be
a price to be paid in some of the most satirical writing you’ve ever laid your big browns on. As a parent, and someone very involved in politics,
I suggest you come out with a statement deploring the attack on a Downs Syndrome child on family Guy first chance you get.
“Hearing Sasha and Malia nearby, pretty Muslim names”
As a racist I wouldn’t expect you to know that Sasha is not a Muslim name.
“Sasha is a female and male given name. It originated in countries of Central, Eastern and Southern Europe as a diminutive of Alexander and Alexandra. It is also found as a surname, although this is very rare. Alternative spellings include: Саша (Russian), Саше (Macedonian), Saša (Slovenian, Serbian, Croatian, Czech, Slovak, Lithuanian), Sasza (Polish), Сашко (Ukrainian), Sascha (German), Sasja (Dutch and Swedish), and Sacha (French).
This name is especially common in Europe where it is used primarily by males as a diminutive of Alexander, although females may also use it as a diminutive of Alexandra. Despite its popularity in informal usage, the name is rarely recorded on birth certificates in countries such as Russia, Ukraine, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia, as it is considered a diminutive and not a formal name. Exceptions are Serbia and Croatia.
In Germany, the civil registry offices allow the inscription of Sascha in birth certificates as a formal name but only for boys.[citation needed]
In other countries, it is given predominantly to females. In the United States the name is almost exclusively used for girls, at number 369 in the ranking of U.S. baby names, although it didn’t gain popularity until the 1970s.
In the early period of Zionism, the name was common among male Jews in Ottoman- and British-ruled Palestine, reflecting the East European origin of many pioneers. It became less common in 1950s and 1960s Israel, but revived with the new waves of immigration from the Soviet Union in the 1970s and the larger wave of the 1990s.”
And of course you are also wrong about the name Malia…
Malia: “A Hawaiian name is a name in the Hawaiian language. Such names are popular not only in Hawaiian families, but also among other residents of Hawaii, and even in the United States mainland among both non-native and native Hawaiians.”
According to Nannies4hire.com and Care4hire.com, surveys of nannies and babysitters in 2009 and 2010 show that children who have nannies or babysitters fare far better than the national average for activity level, consumption of healthy quantities and qualities of foods, and weight ranges. For example, in 2009, 7.7% of nannies and babysitters stated that the children…http://tinyurl.com/ydg85k6
Michelle’s cause is just another thinly veiled push for the nanny state, which is simply another tentacle of socialized health care.
Here’s a cause that the Republicans should take up:
THE WAY to Really Call The Democrats’ Bluff and Save Us in the Process
Barak Obama just wants to give granny a pain killer, not treat her condition. And the state of Oregon would rather assist suicide than give one of its residents cancer treatments/medications.
In response, here’s what we do:
Introduce and pass legislation that would prevent the Federal government, or any of its agencies, from harming us, killing us, or otherwise prevent us from receiving life-preserving treatment, as a matter of its operating any sort of health care system (to include the murdering of infants in the womb).
Push for a constitutional amendment. Really raise as much stink as possible.
Credit Rose Pappas, senior citizen, Chicago, Illinois.
Let’s get behind this. I have a premium membership with Rush and have already emailed him. If you have access to Glenn Beck and/or Sean Hannity and/or Mark Levin through a premium membership, please email them.
I don’t know if some of you conservatives have a functioning memory, but I do. And around the time Obama became President,
he informed us that his family was outs of bounds when it comes to critical media stories. Of course, that includes,
his shapely wife, Michelle and his two cute children.
As Michelle always does, she will do a wonderful job heading the anti-child obesity program. She is a wonderful, compassionate first lady.
Separately, I’m so glad McCain didn’t win. I know he was a war hero, and I give him credit for that, but
to think about putting up with that wingnut, Sara Palin, as vice president almost makes me sick. With a Downs Syndrome child no less.
And I thought the Family Guy episode was hilarious. It just goes to show the Palin family has no sense of humor and can’t take a joke.
What’s more, the voice-over woman has Downs Syndrome which fairly inoculates her from criticism.
Summing up, Obama has told the media that his family is off limits from criticism. Michelle will do a wonderful job. My wife and I
are so proud of her and her two beautiful and healthy children.
If my kids want cookies, they have to make them. They quickly change their little minds and have the yogurt with fruit instead. Works like a charm every time.
Michelle`s dabble in the `obesity problem` ** is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to raise taxes on sugar and junk food.
Marxists never do anything to help people. Only control people….
** = government manufactured outrage for political purposes
Since she broached the subject, why is any discussion of the First Lady’s large butt considered out of bounds? I mean, if we are going to discuss fat, then everything chould be on the table>
#48 Sounds sort of voyeuristic on your part.
Earl @ 48 informs us that Obama has told the media that his family is off limits from criticism.
Well, whoop de friggin’ do. He’s “told the media?” Who the hell is he to “tell” the media anything?
Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, buddy; the media did not respect these boundaries for Palin, or for Bush and Cheney, for that matter. What in your fevered brain makes the unilateral decree of Obama so sacrosanct?
48. EARL IRRMSER:
Where, exactly, in my story do I criticize Michelle Obama? I start with the words “I agree with Michelle Obama” and never once speak ill of her in the entire article. You’re condemning me for something I did not do.
Or, perhaps, are you speaking of the blog comments by the readers? So, in your view, Obama has the right to dictate what the average person says and thinks? Allowing the government to control blog comments would be the death of free speech in this country.
And most importantly, as buzzsawmonkey points out above: Who the heck cares what Obama does or does not decree is “off-limits”? I don’t know if some of you liberals have a functioning memory, but I do. And I remember the media absolutely crucifying Nancy Reagan for her “Just Say No” campaign, for her astrology visits, for her fights with Reagan’s inner circle advisors, and just about everything else. I remember the media mocking Barbara Bush for being old and ugly. I remember the media obsessively running pictures of George Bush Jr.’s daughters Jenna and Barbara Jr. drunk at parties or cavorting with their boyfriends, and so on. The media insults Sarah Palin’s family with schoolyard taunts on a daily basis. That’s what I remember. Do you? Apparently not.
So — it’s perfectly acceptable to criticize the family members of Republicans, but not the Obamas?
I agree that one should not baselessly attack the President’s wife or offspring, just out of spite or partisanship. But if the wife is a participant in national policy, as was Hillary Clinton, Nancy Reagan, and yes, Michelle Obama, then she can be a legitimate target of media analysis — analysis which could include criticism, if it is merited. In this case I didn’t say anything bad about Michelle, but if she does something as First Lady meriting criticism, I reserve my right to criticize her, regardless of the President’s unconstitutional prohibition.
When a leader gets to dictate what can and can’t be covered in the media, then you have a dictatorship. Is that your preferred style of government?
Zombie,
Sorry, I wrote a bunch of stories this morning and when I wrote this one, it was a mistake filled cut and paste job.
Everything you say is correct. The point I was making, obviously, on the basis of what you wrote, was partially lost. My fault.
I definitely didn’t mean to criticize you. My apologies.
Hmmm. Looking at the projects from Lady Bird Johnson on, it looks like it went:
“do stuff that doesn’t immediately benefit you but does benefit everyone as a whole”, “do more stuff like that”, “here is a bad thing that sucks, and here’s what can be done about it”, “here is another bad thing and what can be done for it”, “here is a problem I don’t know how to fix but I will scold you about it”, “here is a problem that is bad but too huge to fix easily”, superpower First Lady, behind-the-scenes superpower… “here is a problem I don’t know how to fix”.
Seriously? Michelle Obama had Laura Bush and Hillary Clinton as immediate predecessors, so one might expect she’d adopt either a bunch of little initiatives, like Mrs. Bush, or attempt to imitate Mrs. Clinton… and instead she goes for something that everyone agrees is bad and no one is sure how to fix, because…?
Admittedly, I’m going off zombie’s historical overview, because I remember very little of the Reagan years (and thus mostly only know of Nancy Reagan’s project through parody) and didn’t even know Barbara Bush had had an overarching project. But it seems like “kids are fat; that is bad” is a look-good-while-talking project, for precisely the reasons some of the other commenters have brought up. (That said, it bugs me that people were criticizing her appearance. Can only someone who’s a model of perfection offer advice / suggestions / point out things that are bad?)
But on the other hand, if she’d gone for diabetes awareness, people would have criticized her for trying to scare people into wanting welfare-state healthcare; if she’d gone for volunteerism, like Pat Nixon, people would have assumed she wanted everyone to become communist clone workers… and I guess not every First Lady’s cut out for being a superpower First Lady.
Michelle is the right man for the job…
What REALLY needs to be done is get all the damned high fructose corn syrup out of everything. Seems like last time I saw the ingredients in anti-freeze, it was even in there. Point is, all these different types of sugars that’s in everything needs to be stopped or at least cut wayyyy back. Also, it would be good for schools to go back to having PE again. There’s more fun ways to exercise these days than when most of us was in school. And why not have things in schools where there’s teams of dieters and you win a decent reward, sort of like ‘Biggest Looser’ on TV. Seems to me there’s certainly a lot more creative ways to deal with obesity at any age (and consider a persons dna for a change.) than to keep on with all this crap that’s starting to feel really fascist.
Perhaps. I guess it’s worth a try. It might be better to promote home cooking, and teach everyone some culinary skills and how to cook simple, healthy meals. Especially with this big chef craze going on, I’m sure kids would get a big kick out of it. I get a little nervous with the government telling kids they’re too fat. What is the government going to do? How intrusive is it going to be? How expensive is it going to cost tax payers, because people can’t walk around the block and broil a chicken breast and make a salad?
I’ll agree that childhood obesity is a problem that needs to be addressed. I’m not so sure that it’s something that the government can do anything about.
I was a fat kid most of my life. I would lose weight once in a while, but then gain it back. A few years back, in my mid-20′s, I finally decided that it was time to make some changes so I didn’t die at a young age – I started watching what I ate and exercising, and dropped around 100 pounds. I’ve managed to keep it off, too.
The best the government can do is illustrate the problems of obesity and encourage exercise. But for actual change, people have to want to change, and that comes from within.
I don’t recall those other first ladies referring to Americans as lazy and complacent during their husband’s campaigns.
I don’t recall them shouting out about the necessity of “re-writing” our history or that her husband, Barack, wasn’t gonna let us continue to be the lazy slobs we were, that he was gonna take us outta our “comfort zones”.
I don’t recall that other first ladies had such large, extensive personal staffs (they didn’t) while ridiculing stuff like the money given post-Katrina individuals in NOLA, as to…”wazzat ? a pair of earrings ?”
I’m sure that when the billions have been spent on this Food Project, the number of children whose eating habits have changed will be at a cost of about 1/2 million per child.
Kind of like the number of jobs that have been “created” by her husband’s Porkulus.
I realize she needs something to do besides dress up, go on $24,000 dates at taxpayer expense, and grow arugula, but both Obamas are too naturally inclined to preach to Americans.
Given Barack’s bad habits, maybe Michelle should go on a campaign to “save us” from lung cancer.
61. tanstaafl:
How tall are you? How much do you weigh?
MadAnthony,
And that statement right there summarizes the underlying problem why kids are fat today – this was seldom an issue when I was growing up and we ate junk food like there was no tomorrow.
But we did ride bikes everywhere, participated in organized sports, practiced everyday, walked, mowed the lawn, had real physical education in school, etc… etc…
Get kids off the butt and make them mobile and few kids would have a weight problem. Some government intervention won’t solve this problem.
You did it the right way and the only real way. Congratulations on keeping the weight off.
First Ladies taking on a pet project is a good thing. That is, if it’s meant to bring and raise awareness rather than to impose government intervention and cost to taxpayers.
If she wants to make appearances on TV and get people talking and discussing healthy food and exercise — encouraging and making it “cool” to eat well, and for mothers to take more interest — even recommending certain meals and going on cooking shows to teach preparation and discuss time budgeting — fine — great. Publicity support for well-written books or magazine articles on the subject. Even White House events.
B-U-T … When asked by Huckabee if her project was going to involve government “nanny” intervention, Michelle said absolutely not, and I was impressed.
However, a little while later she started talking about “food deserts” where there were no nearby food stores in neighborhoods. Then she talked about the need to “assist” the opening of more neighborhood food stores. Create “incentives” for the stores. “Assist” and “create incentives” by whom? Can you guess? So, she’s just like her husband, saying opposite things almost within the same sentence. No government intervention — government “assistance” and “incentives.”
If there were a need for these stores in those neighborhoods, they would be there. Businessmen are always out to find a good project. They are probably not there because the prospects aren’t good.
In these “food deserts” the problem, she says, is that parents can’t just run out and buy a salad for their kids to eat — on the spur of the moment. Wha?? Who runs out suddenly to buy a salad? If it’s that last minute and unplanned, you better believe it’s much more likely to be a box of potato chips, or a package of hot dogs. Or will she “regulate” the kinds of food sold in those (psst-Government) “assisted” stores, kind of, just sort of, applying force, and thus assuring no one will shop there? I can just see the black market for junk food rising from the back rooms of the stores.
The whole thing doesn’t make sense anyway. How are there “food deserts” just because there are no stores nearby? Is that a new “right” which hasn’t been attended to in the “negative” Constitution? Obviously, shopping is done somewhere — they are eating, arent’t they? Is she complaining that the people can’t be expected to get what they need when they do their weekly shopping? And what does that have to do with weight loss and proper diet? Nothing. There will just be a closer place to buy fattening foods — if they don’t buy “salads” in their weekly shopping — why would they buy them at a nearby store?
Obamathink. Cash for Food Clunkers. National neighborhood food stores selling food nobody will buy.
Then she talked about more playgrounds. Isn’t this a local matter? Is it something for the Federal Government to get involved in by subsidizing local playgrounds? Again, talk would be good. Encouragement. Popularizing the idea. Not “doing it for them.”
She’s doing just what is expected of her (and her husband) — insinuating Government where it doesn’t belong — that is — everywhere.
You’re probably too young to remember, but President Kennedy encouraged physical fitness. I can’t recall if it was he who recommended jogging, but someone did — and it became the thing to do and be seen doing — a “fad.” A good fad. Everyone bought headbands and new fancy running shoes were developed and became status fashion, and all started jogging all around their neighborhoods.
Government intervention — 0.
Cost to taxpayers — $0.
When Lady Bird Johnson took up the cause of cleaner roads, I paid attention and have never thrown trash on the roadways since.
I wish anyone well who tackles the obesity problem. If she’s strong enough to get studies into the link between the growth hormones in our meat and the antibiotics as growth promoters in our poultry, she will win everyone’s respect. The epidemic appears to indicate something drastic happened at the time the drug/chemical companies took over the farm via the factory farms. Good luck, Mrs. Obama.
Nice chart, but the O’s have turned heel on a bigger youth than obesity. Kids killing kids in Chicago.
Sure, because our daughters don’t have enough trouble comparing themselves to anatomically impossible Barbie or fashion models! Drum up obsession with body weight even louder! And by all means, use your own kids to humiliate them in public and put them on needless diets! Long live eating disorders!
Michelle (my Belle) has picked a highly visible cause with tons of emotion attached to bolster her creds. She’s doing it for the CHAAALLLDREN. She now cares for all America. A far cry from that angry radical she was in college. I don’t believe her sincerity for half an instant.
Michelle Obama is informing the wrong people. Parents need to be aware of healthy food options for their children and it is obvious, parents purchase products their children will eat!!She should be speaking at PTA meetings or sending newsletters to parents informing them of healthy choices. John F. Kennedy had a program initiated in the schools for physical fitness that was fun, healthy and competitive(for some). This country cannot go all organic immediately, if at all, to provide healthy food choices. Perhaps, Michelle Obama should promote this great country of ours instead of making sure her sculpted arms look good in her sleeveless dresses.
for those who say disparaging remarks about Michelle’s appearance, there may not be a whole lot she can do about her size. She may not be a bean pole, but she really looks pretty fit to me. Stop criticizing her appearance – she probably works out and eats a healthy diet, but is predisposed to large thighs. If I were her, however, I would fire the person who dresses her, because although there have been times when she has looked stunning, there are many times where she truly misses the mark and looks ridiculously large. All in all, I say “good for her”. She is promoting an issue that it is a growing problem in the land of plenty.
Wish her husband could shave a few tons off of the large social and government programs he continues to push on us. Obama’s administration needs to go on a diet and shrink government.
All:
Malkin is using the “guilt by association” argument in her essentially hate speech diatribe. It is a tactic not limited to the right, but employed especially effectively by the right since Nixon’s best speech writers revived it post-McCarthyism. She and her comrades (get the implication?) use this violent form of speech to suppress any kind of rational discussion. This tactic implies an association with the “enemy,” with “anti-Americanism,” racism, and even misogyny. It defines its target in the attacker’s terms, immediately putting the one against whom it is used on the defensive. It is also contrary to the principles of free and open discussion which are a part of this country’s heritage. When anyone or any corporation gives in to this kind of coercion, that heritage is diminished; as a nation, we become more susceptible to the kind of behavior which posters above have noted: blacklisting, scapegoating, etc. And I would add one other: the loss of our Constitutionally defined freedoms, as has happened when Congress signed away some of those rights when they authorized without perusal the various Patriot Acts.