Usha Vance - Fashion Thread

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:In her write up on inauguration fashion, Rachel Tashjian at the Washington Post seems to think Usha Vance looked most traditional at the swearing in of all the prominent Republican women -- more like what First Ladies of the past have worn.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/fashion/2025/01/21/trump-inauguration-fashion-2025/

I agree with this, including the poor fit and slight frumpiness. With the exception of Jackie Kennedy, First/Second Ladies are usually a little bit frumpy. Even Nancy Reagan went for the frumpiest, most conservative version of that "ladies who lunch" look in the 80s. I think frump is an easy way for a First or Second Lady to communicate that she is respectful of the occasion but isn't trying too hard to be the center of attention.

Michelle Obama got a lot of flack for being insufficiently frumpy even though honestly, she went out of her way to be much frumpier than she clearly prefers while in the White House -- her fashion since leaving the WH shows just how much she held back.

Usha is definitely trying to communicate "very demure, very mindful" with her fashion. Not a fashion plate. She does not have Melania's or Ivanka's aspirations in this respect at all. She just doesn't want to offend and that's about it.

Michelle dressed like a harried business executive and mother of two young children before Obama ran for president. She didn’t wear much makeup, had a very simple hairstyle and wasn’t into fashion. She was extremely plain, but she got a real makeover for the campaign and has continued to try new and more daring looks. She looked younger when Obama left office than she did a decade earlier. She didn’t hold back during the WH years; she stepped up.


She didn't have a lifestyle where fashion made sense or mattered much before Obama's presidential run, which she originally did not think was going to last. Yes she invested in creating a look and hired people and put a lot of effort in.

But she also held back. She followed the advice of advisors and also paid attention to the press and was hyper-aware of being the first black First Lady and the extra pressure that came with. She wore a lot of styles during her WH years that in retrospect did not reflect her personality at all -- all the dresses with the a-line skirts and the J Crew separates in solid colors. She was doing WH/Washington drag and it was intentional.

Since leaving the White House she is way more experimental, wears wilder prints, wears her hair in braids and with extensions, experiments with accessories, etc. I think she would have done all of that in her 40s/early 50s had she not been First Lady. Once her kids were no longer really young and when they started to have real money and fame? She would not have been wearing demure midi skirts with matching pumps and twin sets. That was a show she put on to convince people she was non-threatening. Literally every time she exposed her upper arms in public, people would lose their minds, so she spent most of those years suppressing her style tendencies and trying to cover up/frumpify. I think the vast majority of her clothes as First Lady were a political compromise for her (the bright colors, experimental designers were for her, the conservative cuts and heavy does of classic femininity were for everyone else).


Looking back, I agree with all of this. Too bad she felt the need to do this, but most of us would have done the same.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Here she is at the National Prayer Service this morning and I am totally baffled:



She somehow keeps wearing clothes that attract attention while also being weird and ill-fitting. Is this satin? White satin? On a Tuesday morning in January? When it is 10 degrees outside? Wut.

I honestly think she'd do better at this point just buying like a full system from Theory or MM La Fleur or something -- everything in the same three colors, mix and match, same shoes and coat with everything. Her trying to create bespoke looks for different events is a disaster and she'll never be able to keep up.

She's in so far over her head.


Calm down, she looks fine. And she was the only one not rolling her eyes at the Bishop of Washington's plea for mercy from Trump.


She’s 39 and she looks around 59, so no, not really. She needs some help.


OTH- It is so refreshing to see someone not trying to look 29. Her white outfit was fine, if it were me I would have worn a wool or cashmere camel wrap coat over it.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:From the WaPo article: "Usha Vance, who is not working with a stylist but received advice on her inaugural wardrobe from friends, "

Those must be the friends that were posting here all weekend, LOL


Oh, bless their hearts.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Call me crazy but I like the white blouse or dress. It doesn’t really seem to make sense for this prayer service in this weather.

As a Catholic married to a non-Catholic, I am wildly curious about their religious life. I assume he goes to mass weekly. Where? Will he start going to St. Matts? The new cardinal is, I would think, not to his liking so perhaps he will come up to bethesda to go with the kavanaughts or out to Virginia? Does she go to mass with him? Do the kids? Will they go to CCD? Usually these compromises are worked out before the marriage and kids but he converted after all that so I am intensely curious how she’s navigating all that. Wearing white to prayer services and wreath laying….iis that a quiet assertion of the fact that she’s still Hindu?


It's pretty fascinating.

If the white clothing choices are a reflection of her practicing Hinduism, it's going to force these issues out into the open because the white in these settings is very eye-catching. His conversion to Catholicism is already pretty weird and then throw in that she's non-Christian and they have three kids... they are going to get a TON of questions about this. Especially if, like Pence, Vance becomes the figurehead for Christianity in an administration where quite obviously most of these people have no actual religious faith.


Thought JD said in a NYTimes interview that he is a weekly church goer. She attends with the children.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:In her write up on inauguration fashion, Rachel Tashjian at the Washington Post seems to think Usha Vance looked most traditional at the swearing in of all the prominent Republican women -- more like what First Ladies of the past have worn.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/fashion/2025/01/21/trump-inauguration-fashion-2025/

I agree with this, including the poor fit and slight frumpiness. With the exception of Jackie Kennedy, First/Second Ladies are usually a little bit frumpy. Even Nancy Reagan went for the frumpiest, most conservative version of that "ladies who lunch" look in the 80s. I think frump is an easy way for a First or Second Lady to communicate that she is respectful of the occasion but isn't trying too hard to be the center of attention.

Michelle Obama got a lot of flack for being insufficiently frumpy even though honestly, she went out of her way to be much frumpier than she clearly prefers while in the White House -- her fashion since leaving the WH shows just how much she held back.

Usha is definitely trying to communicate "very demure, very mindful" with her fashion. Not a fashion plate. She does not have Melania's or Ivanka's aspirations in this respect at all. She just doesn't want to offend and that's about it.

Michelle dressed like a harried business executive and mother of two young children before Obama ran for president. She didn’t wear much makeup, had a very simple hairstyle and wasn’t into fashion. She was extremely plain, but she got a real makeover for the campaign and has continued to try new and more daring looks. She looked younger when Obama left office than she did a decade earlier. She didn’t hold back during the WH years; she stepped up.


She didn't have a lifestyle where fashion made sense or mattered much before Obama's presidential run, which she originally did not think was going to last. Yes she invested in creating a look and hired people and put a lot of effort in.

But she also held back. She followed the advice of advisors and also paid attention to the press and was hyper-aware of being the first black First Lady and the extra pressure that came with. She wore a lot of styles during her WH years that in retrospect did not reflect her personality at all -- all the dresses with the a-line skirts and the J Crew separates in solid colors. She was doing WH/Washington drag and it was intentional.

Since leaving the White House she is way more experimental, wears wilder prints, wears her hair in braids and with extensions, experiments with accessories, etc. I think she would have done all of that in her 40s/early 50s had she not been First Lady. Once her kids were no longer really young and when they started to have real money and fame? She would not have been wearing demure midi skirts with matching pumps and twin sets. That was a show she put on to convince people she was non-threatening. Literally every time she exposed her upper arms in public, people would lose their minds, so she spent most of those years suppressing her style tendencies and trying to cover up/frumpify. I think the vast majority of her clothes as First Lady were a political compromise for her (the bright colors, experimental designers were for her, the conservative cuts and heavy does of classic femininity were for everyone else).


Looking back, I agree with all of this. Too bad she felt the need to do this, but most of us would have done the same.

In her book she explained that she made very deliberate fashion choices to get more press coverage of certain events and to complement the administration’s agenda. The WH years were about packaging messages in the most palatable ways, not about expressing her own uniqueness.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Call me crazy but I like the white blouse or dress. It doesn’t really seem to make sense for this prayer service in this weather.

As a Catholic married to a non-Catholic, I am wildly curious about their religious life. I assume he goes to mass weekly. Where? Will he start going to St. Matts? The new cardinal is, I would think, not to his liking so perhaps he will come up to bethesda to go with the kavanaughts or out to Virginia? Does she go to mass with him? Do the kids? Will they go to CCD? Usually these compromises are worked out before the marriage and kids but he converted after all that so I am intensely curious how she’s navigating all that. Wearing white to prayer services and wreath laying….iis that a quiet assertion of the fact that she’s still Hindu?

I thought the kids went to Catholic school (so they get religious instruction during the week) and he goes to Mass alone.

From the sounds of it during the RNC she is still a practicing Hindu and mostly stays out of the Catholicism.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Here she is at the National Prayer Service this morning and I am totally baffled:



She somehow keeps wearing clothes that attract attention while also being weird and ill-fitting. Is this satin? White satin? On a Tuesday morning in January? When it is 10 degrees outside? Wut.

I honestly think she'd do better at this point just buying like a full system from Theory or MM La Fleur or something -- everything in the same three colors, mix and match, same shoes and coat with everything. Her trying to create bespoke looks for different events is a disaster and she'll never be able to keep up.

She's in so far over her head.


Calm down, she looks fine. And she was the only one not rolling her eyes at the Bishop of Washington's plea for mercy from Trump.


She’s 39 and she looks around 59, so no, not really. She needs some help.

+100

I met her many years ago through another DC Circuit clerk. She looks so much older. Not sure what happened. JD must be stressful.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Call me crazy but I like the white blouse or dress. It doesn’t really seem to make sense for this prayer service in this weather.

As a Catholic married to a non-Catholic, I am wildly curious about their religious life. I assume he goes to mass weekly. Where? Will he start going to St. Matts? The new cardinal is, I would think, not to his liking so perhaps he will come up to bethesda to go with the kavanaughts or out to Virginia? Does she go to mass with him? Do the kids? Will they go to CCD? Usually these compromises are worked out before the marriage and kids but he converted after all that so I am intensely curious how she’s navigating all that. Wearing white to prayer services and wreath laying….iis that a quiet assertion of the fact that she’s still Hindu?


It's pretty fascinating.

If the white clothing choices are a reflection of her practicing Hinduism, it's going to force these issues out into the open because the white in these settings is very eye-catching. His conversion to Catholicism is already pretty weird and then throw in that she's non-Christian and they have three kids... they are going to get a TON of questions about this. Especially if, like Pence, Vance becomes the figurehead for Christianity in an administration where quite obviously most of these people have no actual religious faith.


Thought JD said in a NYTimes interview that he is a weekly church goer. She attends with the children.

Don't forget, with "her children." Not his. Not theirs. Hers.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:In her write up on inauguration fashion, Rachel Tashjian at the Washington Post seems to think Usha Vance looked most traditional at the swearing in of all the prominent Republican women -- more like what First Ladies of the past have worn.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/fashion/2025/01/21/trump-inauguration-fashion-2025/

I agree with this, including the poor fit and slight frumpiness. With the exception of Jackie Kennedy, First/Second Ladies are usually a little bit frumpy. Even Nancy Reagan went for the frumpiest, most conservative version of that "ladies who lunch" look in the 80s. I think frump is an easy way for a First or Second Lady to communicate that she is respectful of the occasion but isn't trying too hard to be the center of attention.

Michelle Obama got a lot of flack for being insufficiently frumpy even though honestly, she went out of her way to be much frumpier than she clearly prefers while in the White House -- her fashion since leaving the WH shows just how much she held back.

Usha is definitely trying to communicate "very demure, very mindful" with her fashion. Not a fashion plate. She does not have Melania's or Ivanka's aspirations in this respect at all. She just doesn't want to offend and that's about it.

Michelle dressed like a harried business executive and mother of two young children before Obama ran for president. She didn’t wear much makeup, had a very simple hairstyle and wasn’t into fashion. She was extremely plain, but she got a real makeover for the campaign and has continued to try new and more daring looks. She looked younger when Obama left office than she did a decade earlier. She didn’t hold back during the WH years; she stepped up.

Yeah, I remember thinking during the campaign she was kind of frumpy and then on Inauguration Day she hit us with that yellow sequined dress and coat set. She looked beautiful.

Off topic but on the subject of Michelle, my mom and I were discussing this recently: Has anyone else noticed that she ALWAYS had a silk press during her time as FL but now that she's out of the WH she experiments more with braids and cornrows?


Michelle was wearing wigs. Remember the heavy bangs?

DP. Are you black? I don’t think those were wigs. My sister had the same heavy bang in college (which coincidentally one of my white friends also thought was a wig). But to answer PP, I feel like certain black women feel that their hair isn’t “done” unless it’s straight.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:From the WaPo article: "Usha Vance, who is not working with a stylist but received advice on her inaugural wardrobe from friends, "

Those must be the friends that were posting here all weekend, LOL

With friends like those who needs enemies
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:From the WaPo article: "Usha Vance, who is not working with a stylist but received advice on her inaugural wardrobe from friends, "

Those must be the friends that were posting here all weekend, LOL


I'm guessing most of her friends are nerdy lawyers like her and this would explain why her clothes are pretty meh.

Get a stylist, girl! You don't have to go high fashion but people are going to be taking your photograph continuously for four years. Find someone who will put together a system for you that works for most events and then will create evening looks for you when you need one. And I think you need to start from scratch on your hair -- get a lob and a deep condition, start scheduling monthly trims to keep it in shape, follow directions regarding washing and drying.

This isn't about vanity. This is the job she signed on for.


Actually her “job” is to stay bland and out of the limelight. Who has ever cared what the second lady wears? Half the time we don’t even remember her name.
Anonymous
[mastodon]
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:In her write up on inauguration fashion, Rachel Tashjian at the Washington Post seems to think Usha Vance looked most traditional at the swearing in of all the prominent Republican women -- more like what First Ladies of the past have worn.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/fashion/2025/01/21/trump-inauguration-fashion-2025/

I agree with this, including the poor fit and slight frumpiness. With the exception of Jackie Kennedy, First/Second Ladies are usually a little bit frumpy. Even Nancy Reagan went for the frumpiest, most conservative version of that "ladies who lunch" look in the 80s. I think frump is an easy way for a First or Second Lady to communicate that she is respectful of the occasion but isn't trying too hard to be the center of attention.

Michelle Obama got a lot of flack for being insufficiently frumpy even though honestly, she went out of her way to be much frumpier than she clearly prefers while in the White House -- her fashion since leaving the WH shows just how much she held back.

Usha is definitely trying to communicate "very demure, very mindful" with her fashion. Not a fashion plate. She does not have Melania's or Ivanka's aspirations in this respect at all. She just doesn't want to offend and that's about it.

Michelle dressed like a harried business executive and mother of two young children before Obama ran for president. She didn’t wear much makeup, had a very simple hairstyle and wasn’t into fashion. She was extremely plain, but she got a real makeover for the campaign and has continued to try new and more daring looks. She looked younger when Obama left office than she did a decade earlier. She didn’t hold back during the WH years; she stepped up.


She didn't have a lifestyle where fashion made sense or mattered much before Obama's presidential run, which she originally did not think was going to last. Yes she invested in creating a look and hired people and put a lot of effort in.

But she also held back. She followed the advice of advisors and also paid attention to the press and was hyper-aware of being the first black First Lady and the extra pressure that came with. She wore a lot of styles during her WH years that in retrospect did not reflect her personality at all -- all the dresses with the a-line skirts and the J Crew separates in solid colors. She was doing WH/Washington drag and it was intentional.

Since leaving the White House she is way more experimental, wears wilder prints, wears her hair in braids and with extensions, experiments with accessories, etc. I think she would have done all of that in her 40s/early 50s had she not been First Lady. Once her kids were no longer really young and when they started to have real money and fame? She would not have been wearing demure midi skirts with matching pumps and twin sets. That was a show she put on to convince people she was non-threatening. Literally every time she exposed her upper arms in public, people would lose their minds, so she spent most of those years suppressing her style tendencies and trying to cover up/frumpify. I think the vast majority of her clothes as First Lady were a political compromise for her (the bright colors, experimental designers were for her, the conservative cuts and heavy does of classic femininity were for everyone else).


Looking back, I agree with all of this. Too bad she felt the need to do this, but most of us would have done the same.

In her book she explained that she made very deliberate fashion choices to get more press coverage of certain events and to complement the administration’s agenda. The WH years were about packaging messages in the most palatable ways, not about expressing her own uniqueness.


She knew that, as a person of color, the dark colors would make her disappear amongst the dark suits and dresses so she went with white. Meghan Markle likes white for the same reason. It looks good on her but I do think she must have been cold.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Here she is at the National Prayer Service this morning and I am totally baffled:



She somehow keeps wearing clothes that attract attention while also being weird and ill-fitting. Is this satin? White satin? On a Tuesday morning in January? When it is 10 degrees outside? Wut.

I honestly think she'd do better at this point just buying like a full system from Theory or MM La Fleur or something -- everything in the same three colors, mix and match, same shoes and coat with everything. Her trying to create bespoke looks for different events is a disaster and she'll never be able to keep up.

She's in so far over her head.


Calm down, she looks fine. And she was the only one not rolling her eyes at the Bishop of Washington's plea for mercy from Trump.


She’s 39 and she looks around 59, so no, not really. She needs some help.


OTH- It is so refreshing to see someone not trying to look 29. Her white outfit was fine, if it were me I would have worn a wool or cashmere camel wrap coat over it.

Agree her white outfit was one of her better looks - possibly her best? - but come on. You can look your age. It's not like you either have to try to look ten years younger or settle for looking 20 years older, in Usha's case.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:From the WaPo article: "Usha Vance, who is not working with a stylist but received advice on her inaugural wardrobe from friends, "

Those must be the friends that were posting here all weekend, LOL


I'm guessing most of her friends are nerdy lawyers like her and this would explain why her clothes are pretty meh.

Get a stylist, girl! You don't have to go high fashion but people are going to be taking your photograph continuously for four years. Find someone who will put together a system for you that works for most events and then will create evening looks for you when you need one. And I think you need to start from scratch on your hair -- get a lob and a deep condition, start scheduling monthly trims to keep it in shape, follow directions regarding washing and drying.

This isn't about vanity. This is the job she signed on for.


Actually her “job” is to stay bland and out of the limelight. Who has ever cared what the second lady wears? Half the time we don’t even remember her name.


No, she has every right to shine. They like to have her there as their POC so she stands out whether her clothes are bland or not.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Here she is at the National Prayer Service this morning and I am totally baffled:



She somehow keeps wearing clothes that attract attention while also being weird and ill-fitting. Is this satin? White satin? On a Tuesday morning in January? When it is 10 degrees outside? Wut.

I honestly think she'd do better at this point just buying like a full system from Theory or MM La Fleur or something -- everything in the same three colors, mix and match, same shoes and coat with everything. Her trying to create bespoke looks for different events is a disaster and she'll never be able to keep up.

She's in so far over her head.


Calm down, she looks fine. And she was the only one not rolling her eyes at the Bishop of Washington's plea for mercy from Trump.


She’s 39 and she looks around 59, so no, not really. She needs some help.


OTH- It is so refreshing to see someone not trying to look 29. Her white outfit was fine, if it were me I would have worn a wool or cashmere camel wrap coat over it.

Agree her white outfit was one of her better looks - possibly her best? - but come on. You can look your age. It's not like you either have to try to look ten years younger or settle for looking 20 years older, in Usha's case.


I think she looks nearly 40. It’s just that we are so used to everyone dying their hair, getting Botox, getting treatments, that we have forgotten what aging looks like.
Forum Index » Beauty and Fashion
Go to: