Hillary Clinton Says No to Vogue Fashion Shoot

In early November, presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton backed out of a Vogue fashion shoot with photographer Annie Leibovitz. No, she didn't have a problem with the photographer, but she did have a problem with the double standards between the message of a men's magazine vs. a women's magazine.

Nevermind the fact that Clinton had already been photographed in Vogue in Dec. 1998 (appearing on the cover no less in Oscar de la Renta), but that was way before she decided she wanted to run for president.

A writer for the Style section of the Los Angeles Times wrote Nov. 11 that, "A male candidate appearing in a men's magazine is getting his message out. A female candidate appearing in a women's magazine is falling into a stereotype and opening herself up to criticism for caring more about her looks than the issues."

There is truth in that assertion. However, the comment is a little off color considering all presidential candidates be it a male or a female pander to various audiences depending on where they decide to speak one day or for where they decide to be photographed. Sure, there's a point in that comment, but ultimately is there really a double standard?

Men's magazines have never been perceived as fashion magazines per se in the same way that women perceive their magazines, because men don't look at fashion in the same way women do and thus their content and message will always be different.

Most magazines for women are geared toward fashion. There's no denying that and there's nothing wrong with that. Someone who is interested in foreign or domestic affairs certainly doesn't pick up a Vogue or Allure to figure out whether there's going to peace in Darfur or wherever any time soon. No. A reader interested in politics goes for Foreign Policy, The Economist or the New Republic.

This is not to say that there isn't any substance in fashion magazines, but their messages are strikingly different from that of a political publication. That's just the way it goes and that's just the way these companies and their audiences have built up those niches. It doesn't matter whether it's a men's magazine or a women's magazine. The substance is far different than what would be in a political magazine.

So, to say that Clinton would have been ostrasized as caring more about fashion is akin to saying that readers of men's and women's magazines are either more serious and concerned about politics (men's magazines) or so self-consumed as to only care about trends and fashion (women's magazines).

Whether it be a male or female candidate interviewed in a male or female niche "fashion" magazine, the content would have been more entertaining and "down to Earth" so to speak than if the candidate had been covered in Foreign Policy or The New York Times - and there's no double standard in that.