Was Melania not invited to be on the cover?
Just another example of how biased the MSM is, and that Vogue is one of the most leftist publications out there. Should be investigated.
No, as the article explains.
I know @Northern_Piper is being facetious, but in all fairness this is an example of media bias – a non-political publication that for political reasons denies coverage it’s granted to every other first lady in memory.
I mean, I agree with Vogue’s choice, but it’s still bias.
I agree with all of that. That said, the sheer volume of sour grapes produced by that incident was enough to fill a lake of sour wine, with Trump supporters simultaneously loudly complaining about being persecuted by Vogue for refusing to feature Melania and claiming that Vogue was irrelevant and they didn’t care who they put on their cover anyway.
Today’s GOP in a nutshell:
- Believing they’re entitled to something just because they’ve always gotten it, and
- Assigning state-like powers of censorship and persecution to private enterprises exercising their own judgement.
Sorry… lazy today. My bad. 
I didn’t really follow the story at the time, but according to the CNN article:
Was this actually Vogue refusing to feature her, or was it them not coming to an agreement about the story? I wouldn’t be surprised if the Trumps made demands that no other first ladies have made, and Vogue didn’t wish to accommodate.
No worries, ThelmaLou.
Their focus on consumerism notwithstanding, there was an article on capitalism in Teen Vogue that would not have been a welcome addition to townhall•com’s content. I think Teen Vogue is related to Vogue, but maybe it is not?
Whether that’s the case, or if Vogue just unilaterally nixed a Melania cover out of pure bias, the narrative from the right would be the same: censorship, cancellation, victimization.
FWIW, Melania was on the cover of Vogue in February 2005, wearing her wedding dress.
IIRC, Stephanie Winston Wolkoff talked about this in her book, Melania and Me.
She claims that while Melania wanted a cover and a fashion shoot, she refused to be interviewed for or cooperate with an article profiling her - and the magazine didn’t want to put her on the cover without an accompanying article.
“We are not making rainbows and bunnies all day.” That’s good to know.
What a dumb article. A handful of anonymously sourced, extremely vague allusions with almost no specifics. Just as likely to be a few bitter cast offs as an actual reasonable assessment of Harris.
A donor and old friend suddenly don’t have immediate, easy access to the Vice President of the United States! How horrible!
Bad journalism. Par for Politico.
I’m not usually one to play the Sexism Card, but I also have to wonder if this kind of article would have been written about any predecessor of hers with the same personality and work ethic.
Hmmm…yes. BUT, rumors/reporting were pretty consistent about damaging disarray in Harris’ presidential campaign as well. I don’t think it would be unfair to speculate on whether this is a pattern.
The very fact that a certain level of disgruntlement exists is a little worrying. Hard work is great, but you do need a few bunnies and rainbows when campaigning because campaigns run best with enthusiastic, highly motivated staffers with a common focus. And I do worry, because Harris has a high likelihood of being the presumptive nominee in 2024.
Apparently their goal was to write about disorder in the office of the VP by using a style that is so chaotic and incoherent that the style itself is meant to depict the image they are trying to convey. I could not even follow it, which may be what they wanted: to drive the reader off with some vague notion that the rest of the piece really did point out that there is a there there.
Oh working is hard!! Wingers.