Debbie Does Vogue – No Really
WHICH ONE OF THESE THINGS JUST DOESN’T BELONG HERE?
THE DEMOCRATS REALLY ARE LIVING IN A BUBBLE OF FANTASY.
WHY THE PRETTY PONY PICTORIAL OF DEBBIE?
Image re-imagination. When good ole Deb got caught lying about her own lies she was shuffled off and hidden from the world until she could be made over into a credit to her party democratic gender. “Democratic-gender” is a whole separate sub-species, sort of like “gender-neutral” or whatever weird-ass sexual orientation that one politician claimed, “pansexual” I think. I don’t even want to know what being a pansexual is about and I resent that I have to even hear such self-centered vulgar shit spewed by political attention whores. Speaking of attention whores, back to Debbie.
Now who could call that pretty lady in the Vogue picture a liar? Who could charge such a beautiful woman with such an ugly action? http://www.examiner.com/article/dnc-chairwoman-debbie-wasserman-schultz-caught-again-yet-another-lie.
That is why the little lady was given the magic unicorn dust treatment. No, you and I can’t have this treatment as it’s reserved for the most elite humans that move among us.
You and I will have to satisfy ourselves with being honest, and with home treatments of mayonnaise hair conditioning and cucumber slices on our eyelids.
It’s been a long four years people. Have we learned anything yet?
My Very Own Point of View 
If Vogue has publishing timelines like most monthly magazines, those photos were likely taken sometime in July. Vogue would have put her in the October issue because it would hit newsstands around the time of the Democratic National Convention, not in response to something she said in early September.
She was tanking before Sept. I’m not stating that the Vogue shoot was in fact to cover for only the Sept. lies/re-lies of Debbies, but that it was indeed a massive image make-over. Why else take such an unattractive woman and spend so much effort to make her look, well, like someone else entirely? Why not let her own looks stand? Sure – fix the hair and do nice make-up, but this is soooooo extreme that it screams “agenda”.
That aside, I am sure that a publication like Vogue could manage to do a emergency rush job if asked real nicely by people in high places.
The makeover must have start before the Democratic convention. I remember several people commenting on how much better she looked at the convention that she must have had a makeover. Maybe Vogue was involved with that also.
The upper photo presents a nice looking woman. The beautifully designed and tailored dress, however, is very tight below the waist (Note the wrinkles). The hair is softened as is the face either digitally or by a slight out of focus. Maybe Debbie wants to make a change for herself?
Still, the question remains, why would Vogue get involved. She is not really their type, is she? Or is Vogue trying to prove that anyone look good if they follow Vogue’s advice?
Ladysforest, I hope that you are okay. Last we heard, you were sick.
HI KJ, thanks for asking. I am better, just dealing with fatigue now. That’s actually more frustrating. I’ve “begun” three different posts, but they ended up in drafts – LOL – now they are rather outdated. My trouble seems to be motivation at the moment 🙂
Glad to hear that you are doing better. Looking forward to interesting new entries in your blog when you feel up to it again.