In a world where political leaders are scrutinized for every decision they make, it’s not surprising that even their choice of snack can become fodder for partisan attacks. During a recent appearance on Fox News, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, former co-host of “The View” and “Fox & Friends,” criticized Vice President Kamala Harris for indulging in a bag of Doritos after Donald Trump was elected as president in 2016.
Harris shared this small detail as part of a campaign email sent last week, which recounted how she felt that night.
“It was election night for me as well,” Harris wrote. “It was incredibly bittersweet. When I took the stage for my acceptance speech — to represent California in the Senate — I tore up my notes. I just said, ‘We will fight.’ Then I went home and I sat on the couch with a family-sized bag of nacho Doritos.”
Harris continued: “I did not share one chip with anybody. Not even Doug. I just watched the TV with utter shock and dismay. Two things are true eight years later: I still love Doritos and we still have not stopped fighting.”
This story incensed Hasselbeck, who asserted the seemingly innocuous snack choice was emblematic of Harris’ emotional instability, rendering her unfit to lead the country. “You just talked about Kamala Harris supposedly eating a bag of Doritos, so emotionally charged after hearing this,” Hasselbeck said to host Sean Hannity. “That’s the commander-in-chief, potentially, that’s the emotional response of the leader of the free world is to binge-eat a bag of Doritos? Are you kidding me?
“Can you imagine Putin, how he deals with things? Chugging down a bag of Sour Patch Kids because he’s depressed about something not going his way? Or back in the day, Soleimani — what is he binging on Funyuns?”
It’s a telling critique — not of Harris’ leadership, but of the glaring double standard that exists in how women in politics are judged compared to their male counterparts, especially within the conservative media ecosystem. Let’s not forget Trump infamously installed a Diet Coke button in the Oval Office, and reportedly consumed a dozen cans per day. According to broadcast journalist Tom Newton Dunn, it was a literal bright red button that “Trump pressed [and] a butler swiftly brought in a Diet Coke on a silver platter.”
It became something of a running joke during Trump’s presidency (and amid his subsequent legal troubles) that he would drink Diet Coke as a means to procrastinate on making difficult decisions. For instance, last January, former Trump White House photographer Shealah Craighead told the House Select Committee Trump repeatedly stalled filming a video announcing he was conceding the election by asking for more soda.
“His agitation of stopping and starting the conversation was based on asking for Diet Cokes several times, or stopping to take a sip and then starting again, immediately stopping and taking another sip and then starting again, reading some of the scroll, and then asking for a new Coca-Cola, or needing a towel to wipe his head or something,” she explained.
Relatedly, Trump’s fondness for fast food, from Big Macs to KFC, was well-documented. In 2019, Trump hosted the national collegiate football champions, the Clemson Tigers, at the White House and made headlines for the “feast” served to the players. Salon’s Chauncey DeVega described it like this:
Magnanimous and proud, smiling and generous, Trump presented a smorgasbord. The offerings? Hundreds of hamburgers and other food items from McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Burger King and Domino’s Pizza. The food was served lukewarm if not cold. Trump posed while a painting of Abraham Lincoln looked down upon him with an expression of evident disgust could not be more plain.
Yet often within conservative media, these indulgences were cast as relatable, or even endearing quirks of a leader who understood the “common man.”
Meanwhile, Harris is painted as unfit for the highest office because she ate a bag of chips on one of the most consequential nights of her political career. This critique goes beyond simple snack shaming; it’s rooted in a long history of holding women, particularly women of color, to an impossible standard. A man’s fast food habits are interpreted as down-to-earth, while a woman’s snack choice is seen as a sign of weakness or emotional instability.
The misogyny underlying this double standard is as clear as it is insidious. When Trump indulged his cravings, it was a sign of his relatability. When Harris does the same, it’s framed as a character flaw. This criticism reflects the broader societal expectation that women, especially those in power, must be perpetually composed, devoid of human vulnerabilities like stress or anxiety — or even joy (which is apparent in how conservatives intensely criticize Harris’ laughter, referring to it as a “cackle,” a term teeming with misogynistic undertones).
Moreover, the comparison Hasselbeck made between Harris and Vladimir Putin — implying that a “real” leader would never resort to comfort food — is absurd on its face. It’s a reductive argument that not only dismisses the very real emotions and pressures of political life but also enforces toxic standards of stoicism that have no place in a modern democracy. Plus, have we forgotten about Ronald Reagan and his well-documented adoration of jelly beans?
It’s time to call out these double standards for what they are: attempts to undermine women in power by focusing on trivialities rather than their actual policies or leadership capabilities. If a bag of Doritos is enough to disqualify a woman from the presidency, then we have to ask ourselves why a Diet Coke button in the Oval Office was ever treated as anything less than ridiculous.
Read more
about this topic