Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It brings back memories of when I first learned how to airbrush. Surprisingly amateurish job... way overdone.

Yes your right. She should have gotten hillarys airbrushing team. I mean if anyone could make Hillary look good, that's who I would want. You are some jealous little libs!

Quite the opposite. I just know a thing or two about photo editing and this photo is a little painful to look at. Tone down the snark a little will ya.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate pretty much everything about this portrait. Glamour shots is what it looks like. I think the background makes it worse plus the ridiculous amount of makeup. She needs to be more understated. She's a gorgeous woman without all this airbrushing.

+1 Looks like an empty shell. Nothing remotely modern or compelling about this portrait.

It's super cheesy. Looks like a late 80s album cover.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and to the people complaining that she is wearing her large ring, that's her ring. She indeed should wear it. No matter what mine looks like, it doesn't come off. It's a symbol to me. If she DIDN'T wear hers, everyone would be gossiping that something is amiss in her marriage. Give me a break!

I'm sure she has multiple rings she could've chosen instead of the one she's wearing. No one is suggesting that she forego a ring entirely.

+1. That is a 'let them eat cake' ring.

+1

It is not a We The People ring.

Anonymous wrote:It brings back memories of when I first learned how to airbrush. Surprisingly amateurish job... way overdone.

Yes your right. She should have gotten hillarys airbrushing team. I mean if anyone could make Hillary look good, that's who I would want. You are some jealous little libs!

Anonymous wrote:Seems right for her, who she is and what she represents. Telling, really.

+1 . Not much there, there.

Seems right for her, who she is and what she represents. Telling, really.

It brings back memories of when I first learned how to airbrush. Surprisingly amateurish job... way overdone.

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why they airbrushed her so much. She's a beautiful woman. I'm no fan of her or her husband, but I can admit that she's stunning. This photo just makes her look plastic.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and to the people complaining that she is wearing her large ring, that's her ring. She indeed should wear it. No matter what mine looks like, it doesn't come off. It's a symbol to me. If she DIDN'T wear hers, everyone would be gossiping that something is amiss in her marriage. Give me a break!

I'm sure she has multiple rings she could've chosen instead of the one she's wearing. No one is suggesting that she forego a ring entirely.

+1. That is a 'let them eat cake' ring.

Anonymous wrote:Reminds me of a pretty British Airways flight attendant. The photo does not have the FLOTUS aura.

My thoughts exactly. Soon as I saw it...flight attendant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reminds me of a pretty British Airways flight attendant. The photo does not have the FLOTUS aura.

Agreed.

That was my first thought, too. Between the background, which looks vaguely like an airport terminal, and the short neck scarf/suit, I thought it looks like an add for an airline.

The giant wedding ring is tacky.

Anonymous wrote:She looks like she should be working at Fox News and getting hit on by Bill O'Reilly.

LOL, totally. And the ring is ridiculous--what first lady has ever worn a ring like that in an official portrait? She could have worn a diamond band or something. She looks exactly like what she is: a washed up former model turned gold digger with little to offer, but slept her way into the 1%.

When do I get my cake?

She looks like she should be working at Fox News and getting hit on by Bill O'Reilly.