Go figure. 
(Marcus Mam/Vogue)
DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz made waves after appearing in a recent special for Vogue Magazine, so heavily made up (or perhaps Photoshopped) that she appeared “almost unrecognizable,” to use the words of The Hill.
Schultz stunned in a modest blue dress, gazing off into the distance from the clean, polished exterior of a government building. In another image, the woman’s characteristically tight ringlets were transformed into loose waves, her normally displeased-looking demeanor transformed into a light smile.
But how much did one of the dresses seen in the Vogue shoot cost?
New York City fashion designer Bradley Scott told TheBlaze in an email that gray dress Wasserman Schultz is seen wearing retails for $2,000 at Bergdorf Goodman.
(Photo Credit: The Mad Jewess)
The dress is described on the Bergdorf website as a “Roland Mouret Eliza Harlequin-Wool Dress”:
(Photo: Bergdorf Goodman Screen Shot)
According to Scott, the dress selection says a lot about the DNC head.
After highlighting Democratic talking points that vilify the rich– whether it’s “millionaires and billionaires” and their corporate jets, or the tax rate of those making over $250,000 being responsible for the national debt– the designer reminded that Schultz herself once said: “We must expose the stark difference between the Democrats fighting for the middle class and Republicans fighting for the elite and the ultra-wealthy.”
He continued in an email:
Either way, as Scott says, the wardrobe selection is interesting considering the congresswoman regularly criticizes Mitt Romney’s wealth and “Swiss bank accounts” (when she, too, invests money overseas). She has also embraced the envious Occupy Wall Street movement, blasting the rich by saying the protesters were “symbolic of the frustration that middle class folks and working people feel that the wealthy always seem to have the wind at their backs.”
So why is it that Democrat politicians are able to wear clothes that retail for thousands of dollars after blasting the rich, but Republicans are deemed “out of touch” when they do the same?
Blaze readers will recall that Ann Romney was slammed by the media for her $990 shirt back in May, but Michelle Obama looked “fit for a queen” in her $6,800 short-sleeved “jacket” in July.
Scott speculated: “I’d be willing to hedge my bet that this will be overlooked, much like Mrs. Obama’s $550 Louis Vuitton sneakers she wore to a soup kitchen or thousand dollar outfits worn on campaign trails as the same talking points harpoon the wealthy in return for votes.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gue...bbie-wasserman-schultz-glam-photo-shoot-cost/
(Marcus Mam/Vogue)DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz made waves after appearing in a recent special for Vogue Magazine, so heavily made up (or perhaps Photoshopped) that she appeared “almost unrecognizable,” to use the words of The Hill.
Schultz stunned in a modest blue dress, gazing off into the distance from the clean, polished exterior of a government building. In another image, the woman’s characteristically tight ringlets were transformed into loose waves, her normally displeased-looking demeanor transformed into a light smile.
But how much did one of the dresses seen in the Vogue shoot cost?
New York City fashion designer Bradley Scott told TheBlaze in an email that gray dress Wasserman Schultz is seen wearing retails for $2,000 at Bergdorf Goodman.
(Photo Credit: The Mad Jewess)The dress is described on the Bergdorf website as a “Roland Mouret Eliza Harlequin-Wool Dress”:
(Photo: Bergdorf Goodman Screen Shot)According to Scott, the dress selection says a lot about the DNC head.
After highlighting Democratic talking points that vilify the rich– whether it’s “millionaires and billionaires” and their corporate jets, or the tax rate of those making over $250,000 being responsible for the national debt– the designer reminded that Schultz herself once said: “We must expose the stark difference between the Democrats fighting for the middle class and Republicans fighting for the elite and the ultra-wealthy.”
He continued in an email:
It is for the aforementioned that I am now baffled as I look to the current issue of Vogue magazine, with a story spread on this modern day “crusader for the poor”. Herein lies an extraordinary display of hypocrisy as [the] Congresswoman is seen decked out in a $2000 Roland Mouret in one picture. Also not surprising is the magazine that did this article in the first place, as its Editor in Chief, Anna Wintour is a notable Democratic Party operative, supporter of President Obama, hosting several fundraisers at her own private townhouse in Manhattan…
We emailed Wasserman Schultz’s spokesperson to see if the dress is hers or if it was something Vogue provided for the shoot, but he has not yet responded. We’re also working on determining the cost of the blue Derek Lam dress.
Either way, as Scott says, the wardrobe selection is interesting considering the congresswoman regularly criticizes Mitt Romney’s wealth and “Swiss bank accounts” (when she, too, invests money overseas). She has also embraced the envious Occupy Wall Street movement, blasting the rich by saying the protesters were “symbolic of the frustration that middle class folks and working people feel that the wealthy always seem to have the wind at their backs.”
So why is it that Democrat politicians are able to wear clothes that retail for thousands of dollars after blasting the rich, but Republicans are deemed “out of touch” when they do the same?
Blaze readers will recall that Ann Romney was slammed by the media for her $990 shirt back in May, but Michelle Obama looked “fit for a queen” in her $6,800 short-sleeved “jacket” in July.
Scott speculated: “I’d be willing to hedge my bet that this will be overlooked, much like Mrs. Obama’s $550 Louis Vuitton sneakers she wore to a soup kitchen or thousand dollar outfits worn on campaign trails as the same talking points harpoon the wealthy in return for votes.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gue...bbie-wasserman-schultz-glam-photo-shoot-cost/
