Who wouldn't pick up Us Weekly - we all need more of Angie's views on pregnant sex!
Otherwise, nah, I'll pass.

Steph, the story about Lauren Conrad is clearly more important.

I hate it when magazines go where they shouldn't. Like politics with US Weekley, or Marie Claire... or Cosmo... or Glamour.

I want celebrity gossip, fashion, and makeup. If I want politics, I'll pick up a magazine that actually does it WELL.

I'm not picking up the magazine. I don't need to know why the love each other. I'm just happy they do, cause we don't need a sista going off in the White House because of an unhappy marriage.

Wow. This is just ridiculous.

Hulk Hogan's wife is dating a 19-year old?!! That is just sick and wrong.

I know, Linda Hogan- YUCK!

I just can't believe this. It's getting really out of hand.

Oh tiff, this is just the beginning. Just look at how many Obama posts there are today alone.

That's what scares me.

To me it really puts Obama and his campaign in perspective being places next to celebs talking about pregnant sex, and adults dating a teenager.

It is all glitz and glamor and lacking substance, well I guess not lacking all substance since he wants to disarm America. But you know what I mean.

You make a good point Cine. When he's on the cover of US Weekley its kind of hard to take him seriously next to those stories you mentioned.

I would think his campaign would want to avoid that since many hold that characterism of him being more fluff than not.

Those five fist bumps made my morning.

i actually read everything, from pop mags to political and I think it is pretty cool that they are putting this article in USWeekly. I will buy it. I want to see how they respond in a different situation, with a different demographic. I am just plain curious. I will also buy Life and Style to read John McCain's article too.

why in he-l-l do i want to know what angelina thinks about sex during pregnancy? i don't even want to think about her cooter when she's not pregnant. GROSS.

I agree cine and cabaker!!!

Do you think Obama asked for the cover? Don't they choose cover subjects in order to sell the magazine?

If this puts Obama in perspective for you, what does it mean when Bush is on the cover of MAD Magazine?

He might not have asked to be on the cover, but he clearly didn't decline the offer to be in the magazine.

Either way, I'm not placing the blame on Obama. I'm placing it on the media and their Obama love affair.

I agree Tiff!!!

Is it anything like today's version of going on Arsenio Hall?

I hate the trashy pop mags, and tend to turn them around when they're offensive and I'm in a grocery line, but getting this cover gets an image of them to the masses.

I like that she is being the strong mom, btw. Not the cookie baking standing one step behind her husband image, but one that runs a home and a family. I think a lot of moms will relate to that and see it as a strength. She's a smart/strong lady and has somehow avoided coming off as a ballbuster (mostly).

Bias is in the eye of the beholder, but if the media loves him so much who's pressing the lies about him on television?

Is this really an article they participated in or a fluff piece to make you think that until you buy the magazine. I hate when magazines do they, they give all this hype and then it's not a real story.

Also, random, my aunts just saw Michelle at their children's preschool event (I think graduation?) and said she was as nice and great as ever, interested in the other parents that she's known and just as normal as ever. I like that.

MAD is a satire, US is not. Obama had to give permission to be on the cover, Bush did not give permission to be on the cover of MAD. Two totally different situations Steph.

Unlike Tiff, I do place some of the blame on Obama, but mostly on the media and the idiot celebs that put him up on this pedestal.

I think this is a good idea. They're not trying to reach people who actually follow politics and know where candidates stand on issues. They're trying to reach those people who actually believe Obama is a muslim and Michelle hates whitey. It's the perfect way to gain their attention. It's also a way to combat some of the lies about their family.

I just want to fist bump with MC.

There is a more serious article about Michelle Obama in the New York Times. I think it's smart to introduce the American public to the real Mrs. Obama.

You know just because you bake and take care of your husband doesn't make you weak or dim.

Being b*tchy is not the only way to get what you want.

thye looks so cute together, aaaw

Liliblu, what you think is a great thing, I think is completely irresponsible. You are right about the type of person who would read an article like this. All about Barack and Michelle being nice people, people who are in love, love their children- and people are going to vote based on things like this. It makes my stomach turn.

"Being b*tchy is not the only way to get what you want."

Cabaker, I know several people whom I wish you would contact and inform them of this notion. Someone must have forgotten to tell them!

I agree with that 100% Cab. There is NOTHING wrong with taking care of your family in that way.

Cover subjects don't HAVE to give permission to be on the cover - they often pose for pictures and sign releases for their use. And Bush has been on the cover of plenty of crap magazines that aren't satire - and the notion that US Weekly is much of a step above MAD is laughable.

I wish you'd offer legitimate support for your constant claims that anyone has Obama on a pedestal as opposed to McCain. Under scrutiny, I doubt your 'worship' claims hold up anywhere but in the minds of people who dislike Obama.

I'd rather someone vote based on two people who are in love and love their children than based on color or because "they don't want no muslim in office" (heard in my my office yesterday, btw).

bellaressa, that's a good question. I haven't read US Weeky in years (does anyone remember when it was just US, and a relatively decent celeb magazine at that?) but when I've read the "articles" in there, most of the time it is just filler and quotes from "close friend #1" or "neighbor #5".

Also, who called anyone b*tchy? Is being forward and direct and independent being b*tchy? If so, then I'm proud to be a b*tch, too.

...and since I like to bake too maybe that makes me a b*tchy baker

I am also... a b*tchy baker.

Steph, I don't have the data on the number of hours that the media has spent on pro-Obama stories, nor do I know where to get that sort of data. Thus, you are right and I am wrong.

Monday, I wouldn't want someone to vote based on either of those things. Neither is the right way to vote for a President, IMO

"To me it really puts Obama and his campaign in perspective being places next to celebs"

Did you think the same thing when Cindy McCain did a photo spread for Vanity Fair?

tiff, neither is right, but as I've said before on this website... look at the number of hits on pop stories vs. citizen/liberty stories. Is it really wrong to put out SOME information to people who might vote without any at all?

" I don't have the data on the number of hours that the media has spent on pro-Obama stories, nor do I know where to get that sort of data"

There have been TONS of anti-Obama stories as well. And Pro-McCain stories, and anti-McCain stories...it is an election year and the public is interested in learning more. We are getting both families shoved down our throats.

"Cover subjects don't HAVE to give permission to be on the cover - they often pose for pictures and sign releases for their use. And Bush has been on the cover of plenty of crap magazines that aren't satire - and the notion that US Weekly is much of a step above MAD is laughable."

You brought up the satire magazine not me, so maybe make a better argument next time. And who knows where they got the "family album" photos. Could US have done this solely on their own with out the Obama's knowing? Sure. Is it likely? Nope.

"I wish you'd offer legitimate support for your constant claims that anyone has Obama on a pedestal as opposed to McCain. Under scrutiny, I doubt your 'worship' claims hold up anywhere but in the minds of people who dislike Obama."

Read some of the comments on this site. People talk about crying when they hear his speeches, or the fact that Obama will be the best president the world has ever seen (This was actually written). If that is not putting him on a pedestal then I do not know what is. So I offered a couple of situations where I see him being put on pedestal, where are your examples?

Oh and if you need some examples of people off of this site putting him on a pedestal google; Obama is the messiah. There is a great website that comes up that proves my point.

I like Cindy better in Glamour and I think she is doing Vogue in the coming months.

tiff I don't think people should vote for someone just because they're likable. But, if the article clears up any of the misconceptions about the Obamas then what's the harm? The potential first ladies cookie recipes are always end up in magazines. Why not a article about their family life?

"Did you think the same thing when Cindy McCain did a photo spread for Vanity Fair? "

Were the pictures next to celebs talking about Pregnant sex? If so, then I would think the same thing.

Cindy was in Vogue recently. It was the issue with Sarah Jessica Parker on the cover.

Either way, I would rather just see the potential first ladies on the cover/in these magazines, not their husbands. If the potential first lady doesn't want to influence much policy decision, she doesn't have to. A first lady can put out cookie recipes and advocate for charity if that's how she chooses to use the role. So, in my opinion, "fluff" magazines should stick to potential first ladies (and first men in the future), but not have "fluff" features about candidates, who are obviously campaigning to win the most important job in the country, where they will yield a lot of power of policy decisions.

Well Cindy's article was great, sometimes it's good to make people more relateable. I loved the stories of MC and of their family. I think some people need to see the relatability: some go forward and research and others do not (some vote solely on that bases). Others may vote b/c they are on party lines, while others may vote b/c the viewpoint and values of the candidate aligns with theirs. Some people are not educated on the candidates and some vote just how they vote. They may judge you the way you vote. That is all I am saying. You all should check out Cindy though.

Cindy being on the cover herself to me is different than her and John being on the cover.

OH and no one said b*tchy. But it seems to be implied that if you bake and take care of your home and husband, you must be weak and probably dumb.

I don't think thats the case, I don't think the women who stand in front of their men are anymore strong than those who stand behind them.

I am still content with being a b*tchy baker. Or a bitter baker... hard to say...