Comments on: Just a coincidence: Sasha and Malia dolls

By: Kate

Kate — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:13:05 +0000

Why doesn’t she get TY to promise to donate a % to some kids’ charity? Much easier than being all miffed. It was bound to happen, and she might as well have some control and input.

By: greeneyeshade

greeneyeshade — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 05:17:36 +0000

Corwin, it wasn’t Coolidge’s daughter, it was Grover Cleveland’s. Otherwise, you’re OK.

By: JND

JND — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 02:18:50 +0000

May we assume that there won’t be any Amy Carter dolls?

By: AndyJoy

AndyJoy — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:35:28 +0000

I don’t quite understand the outrage. Is it just because the Obamas aren’t getting royalties? If their parents had CHOSEN for cute little dolls to be made (as they are of many famous child actors) would it still be exploitation?

I think it is stupid and dishonest that TY is doing this, but I don’t see it as rising to the level of “exploitation”, which to me implies that the girls would somehow be hurt by this. Where’s the real harm?

By: Mark Roulo

Mark Roulo — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:59:46 +0000

I wonder what would happen if Michelle went on Oprah (or some other show with tons of viewers) and nicely explained to the audience that she though that this was shameless “exploitation of children” and would the audience please not purchase *ANYTHING* from Ty.

I’m guessing that enough would comply that Ty would be very sad.

Michelle doesn’t even get any bad publicity. Defending your kids against exploitation is being a good Mom.

I think she should do this …

-Mark Roulo

By: corwin

corwin — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:54:37 +0000

When “Baby Ruth” hit the market in the early ’20s many people thought it was named after a baseball player.”Not so”,insisted the Curtis Candy Co.:it was for Pres Cal Coolidge’s daughter.They never paid any royalties.As far as that went,neither has Hanna barbera