In a world where every decision political leaders make is scrutinized, it’s not surprising that even their snack choices can become the subject of 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 president in 2016.
Harris shared this little detail in a campaign email last week, describing how she felt that night.
“It was election night for me, too,” Harris wrote. “It was incredibly bittersweet. When I took the stage to give my acceptance speech – to represent California in the Senate – I tore up my notes. I just said, ‘We’re going to fight.’ Then I went home and sat on the couch with a family-size pack of Nacho Doritos.”
Harris continued, “I didn’t share a chip with anyone. Not even Doug. I just watched TV in utter shock and dismay. Eight years later, two things are true: I still love Doritos and we still haven’t stopped fighting.”
That story enraged Hasselbeck, who claimed the seemingly innocuous snack choice was emblematic of Harris’ emotional instability and made her unfit to lead the country. “You just talked about Kamala Harris allegedly eating a bag of Doritos and you were so emotionally charged after hearing that,” Hasselbeck told host Sean Hannity. “That’s potentially the commander in chief, that’s the emotional response of the leader of the free world to stuff a bag of Doritos into his mouth? Are you kidding me?
“Can you imagine how Putin deals with things? How he drinks a bag of Sour Patch Kids because he’s depressed because something isn’t going the way he wants it to? Or Soleimani back then – what is he eating, funyuns?”
It’s a telling critique – not of Harris’ leadership, but of the blatant double standards that exist when it comes to how women in politics are judged compared to their male counterparts, particularly within the conservative media ecosystem. Let’s not forget that Trump installed an infamous Diet Coke button in the Oval Office and reportedly consumed a dozen cans a day. According to a broadcast journalist Tom Newton-DunnIt was literally a bright red button that “Trump pressed and a butler quickly brought him a Diet Coke on a silver platter.”
During Trump’s presidency (and amid his subsequent legal troubles), it became something of a running joke that he drank Diet Coke to delay difficult decisions. For example, former Trump White House photographer Shealah Craighead told a select House committee last January that Trump repeatedly delayed filming a video announcing his defeat by asking for more soda.
“His agitation when he would stop and start the conversation would be because he would ask for Diet Cokes multiple times, or he would stop to take a sip and then start again, immediately stop, take another sip and then start again, he would read something on the scroll and then ask for a new Coca-Cola, or he would need a towel to wipe his head or something like that,” she explained.
Trump’s penchant for fast food, from Big Macs to KFC, is also well-documented. In 2019, Trump hosted the Clemson Tigers, the national champions in college football, at the White House and made headlines for the “feast” served to the players. Chauncey DeVega of Salon described it this way:
Magnanimous and proud, smiling and generous, Trump presented a sumptuous buffet. What was on offer? Hundreds of hamburgers and other food 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 at him with an expression of obvious disgust that could not be clearer.
But in the conservative media, these indulgences are often portrayed as understandable or even endearing characteristics of a politician who understands the “common man.”
Harris, meanwhile, is being portrayed as unfit for the highest office for eating a bag of chips on one of the most consequential nights of her political career. This criticism goes beyond simple snack shaming; it is rooted in a long history of holding women, particularly women of color, to impossible standards. A man’s fast-food habits are interpreted as down-to-earth, while a woman’s snack choices are seen as a sign of weakness or emotional instability.
The misogyny underlying this double standard is as obvious as it is insidious. When Trump indulged his desires, it was a sign of his closeness. When Harris does the same, it is portrayed as a weakness of character. This criticism reflects the broader societal expectation that women, especially those in power, must always be composed and free from human weaknesses such as stress or fear—or even joy (as evidenced by the way conservatives have fiercely criticized Harris’ laughter, calling it a “cackling,” a term rife with misogynistic undertones).
Moreover, Hasselbeck’s comparison between Harris and Vladimir Putin – which implies that a “real” leader would never resort to comfort food – is absurd on its face. It’s a reductionist argument that not only ignores the very real emotions and constraints of political life, but also enforces toxic standards of stoicism that have no place in a modern democracy. And have we forgotten Ronald Reagan and his well-documented penchant for jelly beans?
It’s time to expose these double standards for what they are: attempts to undermine women in power by focusing on trivialities rather than their actual policies or leadership qualities. 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 considered anything other than ridiculous.
Read more
on this topic
