First lady’s trips boost health — and her husband
Saturday, February 11, 2012
DALLAS (AP) — In just the past few days, she’s danced with cheering school kids, chatted with troops, swapped ideas with busy parents and engaged in a friendly cooking competition with stars from “Top Chef.”
Michelle Obama is on a national tour to promote the second anniversary of her campaign against childhood obesity. The images have been disarming, intriguing and non-political — just the type of thing her husband’s re-election campaign can’t get enough of.
Five years to the day after Sen. Barack Obama announced he was running for president, Mrs. Obama’s travels this week offer fresh evidence of what an out-sized role she’s assumed in the public eye and how powerful a political asset a first lady can be.
And, make no mistake, Mrs. Obama says she’s “incredibly enthusiastic” about making the case for her husband’s re-election.
Simply put, “I want him to be my president for another four years,” she said in a 40-minute interview Friday with a handful of reporters.
In recent weeks Mrs. Obama has seemingly been everywhere: Doing pushups with Ellen DeGeneres. Serving veggie pizza to Jay Leno. Playing tug-of-war with Jimmy Fallon in the White House. And now making a rare four-state tour — Arkansas, Florida, Iowa and Texas — to mark the two-year-point for her “Let’s Move” initiative.
The first lady draws a line between her policy efforts on childhood obesity and her political activities. But such distinctions often are lost on the public.
In an election year, it’s all to the good for Barack Obama that his popular wife is traveling the country promoting can’t-miss issues like healthy living.
“This is a bit of a two-fer,” Mrs. Obama acknowledged in her interview on Friday, “because it’s an issue that I care about, and it’s an issue that’s important to the country. ... I want to make sure that what I do enhances him.”
The first lady added that she knew from the beginning of her husband’s presidency that she had to choose issues that were important to her personally because “if you’re just doing it for political reasons or there’s some ulterior, people smell that out so easily and it’s hard to sustain.”
To a more limited extent, Mrs. Obama also fills a more overtly political role by headlining private fundraisers that raise millions for her husband’s campaign, reaching out to supporters through conference calls to various states and shooting out periodic emails to campaign backers around the country.
That part of her labors will increase considerably in the months to come.
But the first lady said she’s careful to protect her time as “Sasha and Malia’s mom.”
“My approach to campaigning is, ‘This is the time that I have to give to the campaign and whatever you do with that time is up to you, but when it’s over, don’t even look at me. ... No calls. No anything.”
For now, the first lady’s most visible role is tied to her signature issue of fighting obesity, allowing her to connect with voters on an emotional level and relate to them as a mother who has struggled with some of the same challenges that other families face.
“We’re constantly trying to make sure that what we do is on point with what is going on in people’s lives,” Mrs. Obama told parents this week as she chatted with them over low-calorie plates of chicken and pasta at an Olive Garden restaurant in Fort Worth. “I mean, at one point I was normal. I went to the grocery store and I did all that.”
Voters typically don’t pay attention to whether an event is political or not, says Democratic strategist Chris Lehane.
“They’re paying attention to whether they like what they’re seeing and whether they connect to it,” Lehane says. And with a first lady talking about issues that transcend the partisan divide, he says, “the mere fact that they’re out there talking reflects well on their spouse.”
And it can’t be lost on Obama’s political advisers that two of the four states on Mrs. Obama’s three-day tour — Iowa and Florida — will be political battlegrounds in the fall.
While the president’s favorability ratings and those of Vice President Joe Biden slipped considerably over their first three years in office, Mrs. Obama’s have remained strong.
Barack Obama’s favorability rating now stands at 51 percent, Biden’s at 38 percent. By contrast, 66 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the first lady, about even with her ratings on Inauguration Day, according to the Pew Research Center.
That’s about where Laura Bush stood in the fourth year of her husband’s first term, and it’s considerably higher than Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 42 percent at the start of her husband’s fourth year as president.
Mrs. Obama is particularly popular with women and younger Americans, polling shows. And she does well with the moderate and liberal Republicans and independents whom Democrats will try to lure away in the fall elections.
There are other ways to measure her appeal: Her Twitter account shot up to more than a half-million followers in less than a month. And her Facebook page has more than 6.6 million “likes.”
The first lady still has her detractors. Her anti-obesity campaign has attracted some “nanny state” grumbling from conservatives who think it intrudes on personal matters.
She said Friday that the five years since her husband announced for president actually have turned her from a natural pessimist into more of an optimist, hoping to make the most of her time in the White House.
“There’s a window,” she said. “Whether it’s four years or eight years, it’s not a lot of time.”
As for how she’s preparing her daughters for the coming campaign, sure to be hard-fought and bitter at times, Mrs. Obama said her focus is on reassuring the girls that “whatever happens, you guys are going to be good. So don’t worry about this, just focus on your world.”
Preparing them for a victory or loss, she said, “I just try to play both sides of the scenario and make both sides seem great.”
So far, Mrs. Obama has headlined 32 fundraisers over the past 10 months, including six this year. Tickets to her political events range from $100 to $10,000, making them more accessible than higher-dollar fundraisers for the president. And her political schedule includes smaller cities, such as Charlottesville, Va., and Cape Elizabeth, Maine, that aren’t likely to draw a presidential visit.
Still, she’s hauling in millions with a fundraising stump speech that mixes a recitation of administration policy initiatives with a personal sketch of her husband as a man who stays up late after the children are in bed fretting over the concerns of ordinary Americans.
It’s the same humanizing role that Mrs. Obama serves regularly in her public appearances, as she mixes public policy with stories about her own family.
What parent wouldn’t think it was cool when she confessed to her dinner guests at the Olive Garden that her daughters aren’t that interested in the White House kitchen garden — “because anything I do they’re not interested in.”

Comments
wyriontair 1 year, 3 months ago
That's nice the First Lady is visiting schools to promote her agenda. Having said that because of new regulations put in place by the Dept of HHS-Division of Child Development and Early Education a young child in Hoke County, NC had her lunch taken away by a "food inspector" and given a school lunch with chicken nuggets (yea, chicken parts that's really healthy) because she deemed the lunch she brought from home wasn't "healthy". The child ate only 3 nuggets and the rest was wasted and the parents were sent a bill for the lunch she was forced to get. Is this really what you want from the government?? Promote exercise and good food all you want BUT DO NOT TAKE A CHILD'S LUNCH AWAY FROM THEM!!!
lovemykids 1 year, 3 months ago
What if that child has food allergies and that was WHY momma packed their lunch? There are all kinds of things a kid can be allergic to. Off the top of my head I know of: lactose intollerance, glucose allergy, red food-dye allergies, yellow food-dye allergies, fruit allergies, peanut allergies, and chocolate allergies. Did they even check the kid's medical file to make sure he could HAVE chicken nuggets before they tossed his home-made lunch??
cmnsense 1 year, 3 months ago
The child's lunch was a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, apple juice and potato chips. Processed chicken nuggets are healthier?? I guess they really needed her parent's buck and a quarter....
Sequoia 1 year, 3 months ago
Actually, wyriontair, you're wrong. It was not because of the guidelines that the food inspector rejected the lunch... in fact, the rejected lunch MET the guidelines, while the new lunch (chicken nuggets) did NOT meet the guidelines. So, the problem is with the state worker, not the guidelines.
I know it is more fun to foam at the mouth about government tyranny, but the problem is that the state inspector went overboard.
spelchek 1 year, 3 months ago
Government knows what's best for your child, not you. Government knows what health care best fits you, not you. Government doesn't care about your religion, stop complaining. Politicians (the POTUS) send their kids to private schools while shelling out billions to fund a failing public education system, pay no attention. Government writes laws that apply to you, not them. Get in line........
tonto_goldberg 1 year, 3 months ago
That would depend on the parent. How many of them send their kids to lunch with potato chips and cupcakes?
JMO 1 year, 3 months ago
If a parent wants to feed junk to their kids, it's a pity, but still not the government's business.
In this case however, the problem isn't the regulations. I choose not to pack my kid's lunch and I pay the school to feed him. But I expect them to offer reasonably healthy food. The guidelines are there for the schools to follow, not the parents, and don't even apply to home-packed lunches. They have no business snooping in kids lunch bags. They should have to follow the regulations when preparing the meals they serve.
Sequoia 1 year, 3 months ago
I agree that schools shouldn't be digging through every kid's sack lunch. If a student is constantly brining junk, I would think a good teacher would take the initiative to find out what is going on.
The problem with just saying "It's not the government's business" (beyond the fact that these are government schools) is that the alternative is that school lunches are big ag company's business. The alternative to government regulation isn't some utopia where everyone will suddenly turn into a great parent. The alternative is what we have now: big ag companies sell low-grade surplus corn and potato product to schools.
I return to the question: Why is that better than government regulation? You can't just oppose a policy... you have to explain why your answer is better.
JMO 1 year, 3 months ago
Are you questioning me? Or Grace?
I thought I was clear. If I pack my kid's lunch, that's my business. Keep your government/school/whatever nose out of it.
But when it comes to the school cafeteria, I think the government not only should, but must, regulate the menus to at least some extent. As it is they class ketchup as a vegetable, can you imagine the cheap junk they'd feed the kids without it?
asb 1 year, 3 months ago
Of course it's our business, kids eating sweet air instead of actual food learn less, aim and achieve low, hurt our workforce and competitiveness, run up health costs whether there's insurance or not, and degrade everybody's life to some extent. But the Money Right likes all that. Their kids get good food, top dollar education, and their workforce is overseas. The Money Right is gutting the quality of public education and blaming the government, while making money off it by selling low-cost-to-produce useless food and paying their politicians to call it high cusine. The government often DOES know better, we pay them to know. I don't WANT the government to care about my religion, just to keep others from shoving their's on me. We are a society, how we act impacts everybody. The government should NOT force a kid to eat healthy if their folks fall for the "When did 'sugar' become a bad word?" web meme being floated by AgCo., I doubt this NC foolishness happened as the OMG web is spelling it out, or that it would be legal. Grace your take is that it doesn't matter whether the food inspector was federal or state, that ALL GOVERNMENT IS OVERBOARD AND BAD. That works for hermits, but your family, church, business, are all government of some sort and take part in the larger government. So you're saying civilization is just bad. More like Midnight in Moscow than Morning in America there Grace . . .
wyriontair 1 year, 3 months ago
Sequoia, if you listened to the interview with the Superindent of the school, he clearly states that they have to make sure that children are receiving "healthy" foods and if they don't have what is now the new guideline they will make sure the student receives it, such as if it looks like the students lunch is not following guidelines by not having enough dairy they will give the student milk and charge the parent. Did the "inspector" go too far, you bet, however, since schools began providing lunches there have been "guidelines" and no one inspected your lunch nor forced you to purchase a lunch. This is not what the government is supposed to do.
Sequoia 1 year, 3 months ago
I had a hard time finding a report that wasn't full of references to nazis or communist china, but I did find this:
nbc17.com/news/2012/feb/16/5/state-agent-says-hoke-county-pre-schoolers-lunch-ar-1937027/
It seems to say that the guidelines require that if a teacher sees a student eating a lunch that is missing a nutritional component, the school should give the child that component FREE OF CHARGE. In this case, the child should have gotten a free carton of milk. It sounded like someone was confused or didn't know what they were doing. But I still don't see what's wrong with the guidelines themselves.
xhepera 1 year, 3 months ago
Sequoia, you're right. There is nothing wrong with the guidelines. And the school personnel who took the lunch that was brought from home was obviously in the wrong and going way outside the boundaries of the guidelines. Someone evidently doesn't know his or her job.
Now, the school district has said that this was an error and apologized. I have no reason to doubt the district officials' sincerity when they say that they do not consider themselves to be "lunch bag police." But there are those here who will, of course, scrounge ridiculously for any crumb of perceived malfeasance that they think they can lay at the feet of the big, bad "government." This story has nothing to do with government. It has to do with a school district employee who needs a reprimand and education on his or her duties and boundaries.
Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting
Or login with:
OpenID