In the News

Gazing upon first daughters Sasha and Malia, full of joy and good manners in their beribboned inaugural coats last week, it was clear these girls are lovely enough to be living dolls.

Toy company Ty has taken this observation literally, marketing "Sweet Sasha"  and "Marvelous Malia"  dolls to the masses.

Profiteering off of a 10-year-old and a 7-year-old without their parents' consent - nice work, Ty. And less than three days after the girls moved into the White House? Good hustle.

Michelle Obama is, obviously, less than pleased. A spokeswoman for the first lady told CNN, "We feel it is inappropriate to use young private citizens for marketing purposes."

Inappropriate? Can we add gross and lecherous to that list? Selling little girls' souls for $9.99 each is disgraceful. Unless you're the mother of Miley Cyrus or the Olsen twins, in which case, it's just good business sense.

Adding to Ty's (forgive me, Barack) audacity, the company insists the dolls aren't based on the real first daughters. Ty spokeswoman Tania Lundeen told the Associated Press that the company picked Sasha and Malia because "they are beautiful names," adding, "There's nothing on the dolls that refers to the Obama girls."

Right ... because heretofore bronze-skinned dolls with adorable clothes named Sasha and Malia have been so prevalent in toy manufacturing business. (Or biz, in TyGirlz speak.)

I wonder if Ty's lawyerzz have heard of a little thing called the right of publizzity, which gives individuals the right to control their name and likeness for commercial use. The company may insist the first daughters are fair game since their father is arguably the most public of public figures in the world, but I hope the Obamas give distasteful Ty toys a run for its money.

What do you think? Would you buy a Sasha or Malia doll for your children?