Vanity Fair’s write-up is the latest in a series of cheap shots at Second Lady, Usha Vance. The New York Times thumbed their nose down at her Old Navy Maternity dress.

Slate came at her with knives out. Amanda Marcotte at Salon also tried to break down SCOTUS. There were random Instagram vloggers spreading gossip and toxicity, and many comments on Mrs. Vance’s recent pregnancy that were despicable.

In reality, we know that Usha Vance would be a darling of the left if she were married to a Democrat. A woman of East-Indian descent with a pedigree of educated family members. An Ivy League graduate. The Vanities would want her in their social circles of self-congratulatory awards ceremonies and galas. They would be foaming at the mouths to host her on their platforms. Designers would be breaking out in Zoolander-style catfights to dress The Second Lady. Instead, Vanity Fair wonders…What Is Usha Vance Thinking?

Vanity Fair‘s Kate Andersen Brower tries to make it all make sense. How, pray tell, did this woman, with “a smile as bright as the San Diego sun”, with such a diverse (diversity is mentioned a LOT in this piece) background of Uber-smart educators end up with JD? How did she come to love Brett Kavanaugh when she worked for him? Why did she gravitate towards Conservative men? Why were her politics so hard to read? And why, pray tell, did she choose JD, of all people, to be her lifetime partner? These are some of the inquiries Kate Andersen Brower asks in this hit piece. Usha Vance is breaking her brain. Usha Vance never gossiped, she reports. But, Brower turns to gossip when quoting a former Yale Law classmate:

She was the quintessential, ubiquitous Yale Law student whom I like to call a ‘gold star chaser.’ Usha took it to the next level. I never understood why she was trying so hard.”-Vanity Fair

Gold Star Chaser is a velvet dagger. I liken this to the more direct term, Starf#cker. This is, basically, what Brower is alluding to by incorporating this statement. Hard, exceptional work in Usha’s case, becomes an act of desperation for relevance and “trying too hard”. She’s a “gold star chaser”. Unbeknownst to the author, Brower pretty much sums up all of the left to encompass politicians, the Hollywood elite, and idiots who actually read Vanity Fair as their Bible.

Brower still is perplexed by Usha Vance. Musing about an off-the-rack dress:

The women orbiting Trump have an overdone look so pervasive that it’s earned its own name, Mar-a-Lago face: skin stretched and pulled taut, hair styled to a glassy sheen. But Usha doesn’t fit the mold. She wears little makeup and favors minimal jewelry. Her clothes have made a similar statement. Unlike the runway-ready Melania, Usha wore something relatively affordable when she made an appearance at the Republican National Convention in 2024: an off-the-rack cobalt blue Badgley Mischka dress that retailed for $495. She doesn’t have a wardrobe stylist either, relying instead on a text chain with girlfriends.”-Vanity Fair

Ivy League. East-Indian Family. Diverse background. Hindu. But no stylist?! Stop the press!

Imagine having no stylist and still looking worlds better than Michelle Obama and Jill Biden ever did. Seriously, with some of the ugly frocks donned by those two, who needs them?

In a political culture where image is everything, Usha’s unfussy presentation reads as a quiet rejection of the performative style associated with other women around Trump—something that may or may not be intentional, but that lands as a message all the same.”-Vanity Fair

Or, the “performative style of the two ladies who looked like complete runway eyesores for years. Moving on.

Besides being petty, the knives come out towards the end of this missive. Kate Andersen Brower argues Usha Vance is not at all the submissive, barefoot-and-pregnant, “yes, dear” wife The New York Times and Salon paint her to be. She is intentional. She knows exactly who she is and what she is doing, gold-star chaser that she is. She’s fine with returning to their perfect home and her career in four years. She is also fine with supporting her spouse should he win the Presidential nomination on the Republican ticket for four years. JD Vance is a Trump sycophant. And Usha helped build that, as the article indicates. This truly scares them.

It also breaks them. In such a fractured world relationally, how can a couple have differing political views but still come together? How can they be from two separate faith-based systems and be united? How did a guy from po-dunk Kentucky end up with a beautiful, educated woman from-(GASP)-such a diverse background who taught him how to eat at a proper dinner setting? Because these people cannot put their finger on Usha Vance, the easiest go-to for them is sneaky, underhanded insults at her spouse and, at her expense.

Something tells us that Usha is keeping the receipts. But, she holds her head high because she knows there is no merit, or value in their opinions. Or, maybe it’s just a certain je ne said quoi that she possesses-a trait called-wait for it-

-CLASS. After all, it is what the far left is missing.

featured image original graphic by Darleen Click