Forum Index
»
Beauty and Fashion
Michelle Obama's Official Portrait
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
She looks awesome!!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/27/michelle-obama-official-p_n_170601.html |
Anonymous
| Fugly! |
Anonymous
| Gorgeous! |
Anonymous
| not sure i like the sleeveless (sorry michelle). |
Anonymous
|
I like it!
She certainly makes the most of what she's got. |
Anonymous
|
I think the sleeveless decision is one that time will tell - - I think it looks unattractive on a First Lady. Love her face and hair but something more suited to the White House walls than sleeveless would have been more... historical.
|
Anonymous
| I like it. I applaud her for wearing something that's "her." |
Anonymous
|
the dress looks bad on her, imo. something about the cut of it just seems wrong.
Not sure if its an issue of sleeveless or more an issue of the cut of the sleeveless top. she could do MUCH better dressing. |
Anonymous
I agree. |
Anonymous
I agree. The line running across her waist makes it look weird in the photo. It's a beautiful dress but just not for that type of photo. Looks like something from Banana Republic's holiday party collection. I also think her wrists and hands look bare. |
Anonymous
| I think the arms distract from her face. She has great arms, but for the most part, I think she'd look even better in something with sleeves--especially in February! (Evening gowns are an exception.) |
Anonymous
| She looks great. |
Anonymous
She does look great. She does not look appropriate for an official white house photo though. |
Anonymous
| She is being herself. They are not letting the White House define them, rather they are changing the White House. I love it. |
Anonymous
Why is it inappropriate? Because she has some skin showing? Is this the Victorian era where women should be covered to wrists and ankles? Or fundamentalist Iran? Lady Bird Johnson had almost as much skin showing. Was she inappropriate too? 
|