The first WHAT? Duuuude! (Reference your paragraph starting "Gigot & Co"). Freudian much?
Nitpicking typos notwithstanding, I see, and to some degree sympathize with, the WSJ point of view. With so many Federal overreaches during the last two years from which to choose, this one is one that will allow the MSM to caricature her as making Michelle Obama's concern over childhood obesity a disproportionately large concern. After all, IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN! And if the extent of her involvement were hectoring indulgent parents and Ronald McDonald for allowing bad choices, I'd say more power to her - Heaven knows how many of the fat little urchins that waddle past my house every day on their way to the local school might be improved by shedding a few pounds, to say how much nicer my front lawn might look without all the Ho-Hos wrappers and empty soda cans that their mothers pack them off with for breakfast.
I'd have no problem with using the bully pulpit of the Presidency - or in this case, the First Ladyhood, even though Dolley Madison's name (minus the "e") is besmirched by a carb-laden snack cake manufacturer - to push Americans into consciousness of our corpulence. I just hate when it becomes an order.
I've heard this from a few sources, none I trust more than the WSJ Ed Page or Brother Keith, but I remain unsold. I still see pictures of a signing ceremony for the "Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act" and FLOTUS assuring us that it is "a national security issue."
Yup, there are more egregious intrusions, but I don't think that gives the First LaDy a pass.
Br'er jk: you won't find me disagreeing with you; hence my tepid "to some degree sympathize with" choice of words. I agree with you; but I also understand this issue is easily caricatured by her opponents, along the lines of "I can see Russia from my house!" We know what the truth is - but try persuading the electorate, which has the attention span of a ferret on crack cocaine and gets its news from CNN, the AP, Jon Stewart, SNL and HuffPo.
If you'll pardon me, there are some fat schoolkids on my lawn, and I want to show them my impression of Clint Eastwood.
The really fat ones probably smoosh down the grass worse...
I'll agree with everything you say, and even suggest that her comment -- I actually heard it on the show before reading about it -- was off base. But I am surprised to see the WSJ Ed Page call her out on it. And I can't help but feel it is a warning shot.
The "Just Say No to Creampuffs" campaign is not "for the children" or to create a young legion of "Obamatons" but it is, in the Progressive mind, necessary for collectivized health care. I'm sure that Palin sees the link but a more pressing reason for opposition is the depth and breadth of state intrusion on personal choices. They'll be choosing our underwear style soon at this rate.
And it still boggles the mind that they think we poor dumb rubes aren't to be trusted with free choice while using a cafeteria tray, but may do whatever we'd like with those pesky unwanted pregnancies.
Don't laugh at the headwear thing, JG. If Junior doesn't wear a hat and catches a cold, he might go to school and give it to others. Some of those others may infect others, who may in turn give it to a soldier, who may miss his deployment due to illness. Headwear is a matter of national security!
Excuse me, the phone is ringing... I think it's Janet Napalitano with a job offer... "Hello..."