<p>“I thought the Obama girls looked cute and behaved appropriately. The president was joking around, and the (mild) faces they made were at his lame jokes. He asked them if they wanted to pet the turkey. I think it’s long past time to retire this stupid tradition.”</p>
<p>Mr B watched the video waiting for something even remotely inappropriate to happen. His reaction after watching the entire thing was, “What were those comments all about? Two cute teens behaving really well while being embarrassed by their dad’s lame jokes? Where is the inappropriate behavior?” Yup, Mr is known for his signature lame jokes. </p>
<p>I’m looking at a pic of the Roberts’ children at his swearing in. I would have dressed my children in more or less the same thing. The boy is dressed in a suit with short pants and a red bowtie. The girl is dressed in a pretty pink number with mary janes and white ankle socks, and a headband. They look like affluent Northeast children dressing in children’s versions of the Ivy League. Is that what was criticized?? </p>
<p>I don’t see a difference. If someone makes an inappropriate remark about a politician’s child, and it is really hurtful, then resignation is appropriate. I suppose the employer’s criteria are really what matter. The news outlets that still have these people on air are the ones who have no standards.</p>
<p>It’s interesting how some people in the media ( or some type of publicity related positions ) are held accountable for their incendiary comments made about various politicians and their children , and some are given a free pass . </p>
<p>Can we not turn this isn’t a political issue? I think we all agree that especially minor children should be off limits. We can disagree about adult children but that’s a different thread. The Obama girls are minors so it’s not at issue. </p>
<p>I just don’t want to see yet another thread shut down because of a few who insist on bringing in politics </p>
<p>Who says anyone is giving people a “free pass”? If you don’t like what someone in the media says, don’t watch or listen to their program. Just look at what is (slowly) happening with a certain well-known radio host. After a certain point the “shock value” comments start to hit media organizations where it hurts, when advertisers pull out and ratings drop.</p>
<p>Our media seems almost entirely dominated by reality shows promoting outrageous behavior. People who sign up for that, in my opinion, have every right to be evaluated according to their actions. People who don’t should be left alone.</p>
<p>I think the decision should be left to the individual employer.I have taken a stance that I stop paying attention to media that picks on children of polticians.</p>
<p>The issue isn’t can you criticize a couple of kids at a public appearance on social media. Of course you can and plenty of people criticize plenty of kids every day. But, this woman was is a politicians social media specialist so she can’t air her private thoughts on her public page. Nancy Nobody can have it and many did and will continue to talk about anybody and everybody whatever age or political party.</p>
<p>Tatin, of course she was asked to resign. I would be too if I was so stupid, even in the non-public-facing job I have now.</p>
<p>marie is right–people can say what they want privately, and do. One would think a person in a social media/communications role would understand the difference.</p>
<p>The (former) Washington Post fashion writer who criticized the garb of Roberts’ wife and children also criticized the attire at various times of Hillary Clinton, Dick Cheney, and Michelle Obama, causing a flap each time. Criticizing clothing was part of her job, but she shouldn’t have said anything about Roberts’ kids. She also has a Pulitzer Prize, so perhaps she has some virtues as well.</p>
<p>Lauten’s LinkedIn profile has now been modified. Scores and job descriptions no longer appear. Her twitter account, with its many snarky tweets, is now private as well. I was surprised she still had that info up last night.</p>
<p>Haha, Romani, I completely agree about presidential children being off-limit. But, perhaps with the caveat that this works as long as the children are not used as political pawns in the first place. I think that the Obama’s did a much better job --or their handlers-- in the last years than in the beginning. Even the story about the kid escapade in Mexico got little to no traction in the press. Keep the elected officials in the public fireline (as a form of speak) but the non-elected bunch behind the curtains and all should be well. </p>
<p>Regardlng the comment to veer into politics and having a thread closed down, isn’t it a bit cynical to have THIS thread considered worthy of an apolitical existence on CC or worthy of being here altogether. A thread about the Obama children is hard to remain apolitical for long, and IMHO just plain garbage. </p>
<p>Can’t have your cake and eat it too! Ask Cobrat and Marie Antoinette for details! :)</p>
<p>Aside from posting the SAT/ACT scores years after college, why would anyone who got a 36 on the ACT or a 1580 on the SAT ever want to spend a Saturday taking the other one?</p>
<p>The nature of the jump has to be entirely in the eye of the beholder. All of us are entitled to make distinctions between common appearances and what amounts to political unneeded participation. I do not think it is that hard to understand that kids who are kept out of the limelight deserve protection and privacy. The debate might be about the need to bring them out of the said protection. Again, the latter being something the POTUS family did much better after his initial year. </p>
<p>It seems to me that bringing your kids to the turkey pardoning isn’t very political–but using the kids in an attack on their parents is, and that’s what I think makes Lauten’s transgression particularly bad.</p>