See, now if a picture of that had been on the poster, it might have been worth the paper it was printed on.
Frankly, the main problem is that parents seem to want a lot from the school system - teacher, nanny, feeding, entertainment … but they restrict the budget highly.
You need to pay the teachers, and maintain the buildings, there goes the majority of the budgets. I heartily agree that kids need to eat, and so I could stand behind better menu planning to allow for fresh fruits, vegetables, - when I was the USDA commodities liason for a major food service company, I worked with schools. One school system in Connecticut [I doubt anybody will get upset if I mention it was Norwalk] had a great managing director. He had quite the budget and bought fresh fruits, vegetables, reasonably healthy snacks.
The problem comes with the OTHER programs. Gym class is good, to get the sprogs off their asses and exercising, but then when you add in all the other after school activities. As a random example, football. You have to pay the coaching staff, even if you dont have full time coaches, teachers tasked with afterschool activities do get paid for it. Uniforms, equipment and supplies that are not student supplied [medical tape, instant heat or instant ice pads, ace bandages …] There is the need for transport to away games, so there is after hours bus usage, gas and driver pay. Then there is the cheerleading crew, with a coach, uniforms … now multiply it by basket ball, soccer, field hockey, baseball, softball … boys teams, girls teams …
Every dollar that goes for other programs means that it doesnt go for books, teachers, school supplies … food… maintenance crew and kitchen staff…
And I’m guessing that the Obama girls’ lunches do indeed contain meat, in which case my opinion of the ads change. If the complaint is about public school students getting meat, and the Obamas also get meat, then including them in the ad does nothing to address the issue, and they’re there purely for sensationalism. The organization that placed the ads is doing the equivalent of trolling, and it was absolutely inappropriate to drag the girls into it.
The school I went to for elementary was private and rather small. Their lunch system was basically fast food. Mondays was hamburgers/cheeseburgers from burger king, tuesday was tacos from taco bell, wednesdays was pizza from a local place (you told the teacher what kind you wanted in the morning during attendance, so the lunch people would know how many/what to order), thursday was nachos (chips and warm, orange liquid), friday was hotdogs. Real healthy stuff.
When I moved to public school, things were better.
I’m all for improving school lunches. I dont think they could ever get to a point where they couldn’t be improved. Kids grow up only knowing a few foods (chicken nuggets, fries, burgers) and being afraid to try new things. I think not only the nutrition of food should improve, but the selection.
There’s a good british mini-series called Jamie’s School Dinners about Jamie Oliver’s campaign to reform the country’s school lunch system. You can find it in torrent land, usually, if you’re into that sort of thing. Hypothetically.
I just know that I’m not taking down the poster at my house until Obama reads me a bedtime story.
The posters are stupid but I also think the White House’s lawyers have the right to use any kind of phantom legal big stick they want. Let the organization decide if they can win in court by exploiting the Obama’s children for political gain
As someone who has subbed in a number of different public schools over the last few years, I can testify that some public schools, at least, are serving pretty good chow these days.
Aren’t school lunches a form of socialism? 
If the organisation was saying that M&S got special lunches purely and only because daddy was president (as in, he wasn’t paying for it, and the state provided because he was important) could he take action against them for accusing him of corruption?
Doesn’t that fact that it was a lawyer that called imply that there is a legal threat? If it was a simple request that the posters be taken down, couldn’t an aide have handled it?
Yes, yes, Mr. Picky. 
Just curious. Where are these public schools that don’t serve nutritious lunches? I thought that every school lunch had nutrition standards handed down by whatever busybody government group that supervised it.
If the Obama daughters got a puppy, why didn’t I?
I was originally going to ask how much control there is at the federal level over school lunches, and then I remembered Ketchupgate…
Even in Detroit kids pay for school lunches. If your parents do the paperwork, poor kids can get it at reduced prices or even free. But in public school, I always paid for lunch. Apparently they still do.
They do, but the busybody government groups standards are perhaps a little on the low side - fairly low nutrition values in fairly highly caloric food that kids will eat is the norm. Not exactly “grilled lean chicken on a whole wheat bun with a side of steamed broccoli and a delicious side salad of spinach.” There is an ongoing debate in our district - you can offer the kids more nutritious alternatives, and then they throw them out. Or you can offer them pizza and chicken nuggets and chocolate milk and they get the calories and what nutrition is in pizza and chicken nuggets and chocolate milk. Its a lot of white breads, processed fatty meats, potatoes as a vegetable, and fruit cocktail in syrup.
It also needs to be affordable - both from a parent pays and from a “free and reduced lunch” reimbursement standpoint.
There is room for improvement in school lunches provided by public schools (which, like most things in the public school system, vary greatly state by state, district by district, and even school by school), but I don’t know that now is the ideal time to tackle it. Moreover, I’m not sure that this is the right approach.