The XX Factor: What women really think.

Dispatches From the White House Kitchen

[Gourmet editor Ruth] Reichl would like the White House kitchen to issue regular news releases that describe what the first couple and their daughters are eating. (Then parents across the country could tell their children, "You know, Malia and Sasha were eating salad yesterday ...")

Excellent idea! What 10-year old would not benefit from national news releases detailing the number of calories she consumes daily? Why not release updates on Malia's BMI as well? Then the girls would know that they are eating salad for America.

The Times' article is on Michelle Obama's "Healthful Eating" agenda. I cringe every time Obama slips into domestic goddess mode, and this is no exception. I do not want the first lady's agenda to have anything to do with kitchens or children's libraries. I do not want her to submit recipes to cookbooks or talk about her efforts to make her husband pick up his dirty socks. I realize that Obama is trying to navigate an incredibly backward set of norms (Washington is a conservative place no matter who is in power), and that David Brooks will find her terrifying no matter what she does, but I wish she would resist the impulse to become our Nurturer-in-Chief. (When Hillary Clinton said that she would not "stay home and bake cookies," it was not the caloric content of cookies that concerned her.) The idea of Michelle doing talk shows about how to prepare kid-friendly broccoli dishes while her husband is discussing nuclear armament with Russia makes me want to do a lot of things, and planting a sustainable vegetable garden is not among them.

Marketing Sasha and Malia

Bonnie, you're right about the Obamas not being able to keep their daughters' popularity in a bottle—the girls are just too cute for words—but I do think their parents can protect them by strictly limiting their media exposure and not allowing them to be mass-marketed by J. Crew, Ty Girlz, or any other company looking to profit off Malia's and Sasha's image. It's bad enough to see the president and the first family's picture on every imaginable tasteless piece of memorabilia (what's next, bathroom tissue?). I'd hate to see the girls become so overexposed that their fans turn into haters tired of seeing them everywhere. I think the parents would also do well not to release any more private-moment pictures of them with their girls, such as the ones of the girl's first day of school in D.C. As Emily B. pointed out in a post about those pictures, the Obamas' decision to make them public sent mixed messages about their daughters' zone of privacy. If the first couple consider photos of their girls doing something as mundane as going to school to be public information, why wouldn't the paparazzi try to push the envelope further the next time the girls are out and about in D.C.? (Granted the Secret Service will likely keep aggressive-minded photographers away, but still. ... ) The Obamas' decision to allow the girls to be interviewed on television last summer also surprised me, especially because it was done in the heat of the presidential campaign and because candidate Obama then said he regretted the decision.

I thought it was pretty classy when, after broadcasting a story about the girls' first day of school, one of the networks news anchors announced it would be the station's last story on the girls because they were entitled to their privacy—and their childhood. The station also said it would follow the same privacy guidelines it had adopted for Chelsea Clinton and other past presidential children. The Clintons' were absolutist about keeping Chelsea out of the media spotlight, and I think it served her well over the long-term.