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.