Read on Twitter
The purported Vogue Kamala cover is bad, but I don't think there's any malice or a lack of consideration behind it. I think it has more to do with this moment and how tough it is for non-political media to navigate it as well as Kamala's own style and persona.
Vogue has put First Ladies on its cover and given political women room to be glamorous in editorials before. I think the failure of the cover has more to do with the limits of fashion media and the type of women it elevates or spotlights.
FLOTUS is a role born out of 19th C. social conventions, encompassing hostess duties and charitable work. Even with norm-breaking women like Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton in the role, Vogue could fall back on elegant society portraiture tropes to capture them.
There is no precedent for shooting a Vice-President for the cover of Vogue. And Kamala herself is very lawyerly and no-nonsense in her presentation, which means putting her in couture or posing her pretentiously was always out of the question.
When Elle shot her, they went so far away from glamour or fashion photography that it looked like something in the back of an airline magazine. https://twitter.com/tomandlorenzo/status/1313504636075114498
This cover is bad and unflattering, but it looks to me like Vogue tried to glam up a person in a role where she absolutely has no intention of being glamorous. The Chucks, the business suit, and the Vogue-ian "crumbling aristocracy" background combined to make a terrible image.
Vogue doesn't know how to photograph feminine power if it's not wrapped in old-school elegance, bottom line.
To throw more gas on the fire: I think it's possible, but extremely difficult, to appropriately photograph a female Vice-President for the cover of Vogue. I'm just not convinced you should.
But the final cover is definitely a huge improvement: https://twitter.com/IAMFASHlON/status/1348284900349243395
