What a difference four years make.
The official photo taken of Mrs. Obama during the President’s first term in office boldly displayed her toned shoulders and showed her sporting a conservative, side-parted hair style. She wore a form-fitting black dress with a wide-shot of a White House meeting room in the background.
For her second-term photo, Mrs. Obama is dressed more conservatively: she wears a long-sleeved, indigo dress. The most drastic change is the new hairstyle she’s adopted. Her bangs graze her eyebrows and her tresses curl delicately beneath her chin.
The common trait of both official photos, shot by Chuck Kennedy, is the pearl necklace gracing Mrs. Obama’s throat. She chose a single-strand style for the second term; the first time around it was a double-strand.
The signs of age and weariness – wrinkles and graying hair – are always a subject of popular fascination when people view retrospective photos of American Presidents. And the media has frequently remarked about the way President Obama’s close-cropped mane has grown whiter over time.
But the First Lady’s second-term photo evinces no signs of worry over the State of the Union. She looks no worse for wear, and in fact will make physical fitness awareness a main focus of her public service duties.
On a scale of 1-to-10 (ten being the highest), how would you rate the First Lady’s second-term portrait? Did four years in the White House change her look for the better, or for the worse? And would you prefer to see an official photo released annually, or is seeing Mrs. Obama actively serving citizens in the media glare on an almost daily basis sufficient?