The New York Times seems to be in love with Obama’s newly released portrait as they were with him while he was president.
Barack Obama's portrait shows him not as a self-assured, standard-issue bureaucrat, but as an alert and troubled thinker.
Michelle Obama's portrait overemphasizes an element of couturial spectacle, but also projects a rock-solid cool. https://t.co/tTJuIGWa4d
— The New York Times (@nytimes) February 12, 2018
‘Self-assured, standard-issue bureaucrat, but as an alert and troubled thinker.’
Alrighty then, NYT.
Both portraits are sorta silly and the one of Michelle looks NOTHING like her. And what’s with all the bushes behind Obama? Was that some sort of subliminal play on the president before Obama?
Maybe we’re overthinking this.
Get a room! https://t.co/dG0xz4xK5N
— Heimish Conservative (@HeimishCon) February 12, 2018
I don't know who painted these portraits but….they're really not very good. Mrs. Obama's portrait looks unfinished and very 1-dimensional. I'd ask for my money back, I think.
— Patsy Jones (@pjones59) February 12, 2018
They look … off.
— Michael pratschner (@mpratschner) February 12, 2018
Yeah, a bureaucrat who bombed more countries than W.
Only thing I can see pic.twitter.com/PezncRIVLy
— Benjamin Fait (@Ben_Fait) February 12, 2018
Was this a high school Budding artist competition?
— robbi elias (@bstnrbstr) February 12, 2018
This actually crossed our minds, that maybe this was some sort of high school competition?
This is better . . . . pic.twitter.com/zvLiPtOIEU
— Pax Americana! (@Red_State_Rebel) February 12, 2018
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
We are all alert & troubled right now
— natalia (@natalia5727) February 12, 2018