1. Were there ever any White House children more exposed and exploited than the Obama girls?
Of the 85 or so days that Obama has been in office, how many times have those girls been trotted out for a photo op? Were any other White House kids so often in front of cameras? Good to see Malaria with something to smile about for a change instead of her usual head-down blank expression presentation. It strikes me as very similar to Prince William's in the years immediately following the death of his mother. Much was made of his contempt for the press and this manifestation of his resentment towards them. His posture and expression were signs of his resignation to the fact that they were always around and he would have to submit himself to the camera's glare, willingly or not. Does anyone see any similarity between the situations of these two world famous children?
The Obama daughters have always been children of politicians and have never known anything different. There's never been a time that they weren't expected to be part of someone else's performance, on a schedule not their own, or had their preferences placed over the political needs of their father. Take the baseline fishbowl of the White House, the constant media exposure, the parade before the public when it suits someone else's agenda then add the looming hormonal pre-teen years.
Let's hope that their father's universal healthcare plan has a strong mental health component to it because there are going to be issues.
2. Does Obama have to lie about everything?
Hooboy - what this bunch doesn't now about dogs is a lot. Rule #1 - establish who is the master. Apparently, Ted Kennedy's dog trainer did not get the opportunity to include the owners in the dog training. I'm sure it'll all work out - in about a year or so when the animal grows out of its puppyhood and settles down.
Here's the thing: the information about the dog, formally scheduled to be introduced on Tuesday 4/13, slipped out a few days early. Over the weekend when the pretense could no longer be maintained, the White House admitted that the dog was already living at the White House, a story which subsequently disappeared from WaPo. Yet today, a big fuss was made as reporters announced that "it's moving day for BO". For a dog that's already been living there?
Add all that confusion to the distraction of the story about the rescue dog, the returned puppy that just happened to be from the same litter as Teddy K's newest dog - what's the big deal? They wanted a certain type of dog and they got it - why all the lying? They didn't lie about the school they chose for the girls and that was the same kind of expensive, elitist selection made for personal reasons based on what worked best for the family.
If they feel lies must surround a personal thing like this that has no real impact on anyone else, what chance does the public have of ever hearing truth about anything else asociated with the Obama presidency?