Hillary Clinton remains hot on the trail of the Deplorables™ responsible for denying her the presidency — twice.  Mediaite captures part of a lengthy conversation with former Australian prime minister Julia Gillard about the many obstacles Hillary faced from the people she thought she should govern, including the “very large proportion of the population” who are too chauvinist to have a woman as leader. Hillary laments that women get attacked for their appearance as a means to belittle them and make them seem unworthy of power:

The former Secretary of State mentioned how men who run for office “come in all sizes and shapes” with “all kinds of hairstyles” and they go unmentioned because you’re “used to seeing men in these roles” and women are still “breaking glass ceilings.” She also invoked President Trump‘s attacks of women like Carly Fiorina and Megyn Kelly during the election for their appearances, which she insisted was a way for him to “undermine” women.

“There is still a very large proportion of the population that is uneasy with women in positions of leadership,” Clinton said, “and so the easiest way to kind of avoid having to look at someone on her merits is to dismiss her on her looks.”

It’s impossible to deny that women face a tougher standard when it comes to appearances. However, the idea that men get a free pass on the superficial is simply untrue. Google “Trump small hands” and click every one of the 7.6 million links; we’ll see you in 2063. “Trump orange skin” gets about 4.2 million links. As for hair, we heard more about Trump’s hair than we did about Hillary’s during the campaign; there are nine times as many links for “Trump hair” (81 million) than there are for “Trump small hands.”  “Hillary hair” only nets about one-fifth the links (15.5 million), and “Hillary pantsuit” only nets 414,000.

For instance, just from this week at Yahoo News, this news story combines Trump’s hair and skin in the lead on a Stormy Daniels update:

What’s as orange as Donald Trump‘s skin and flops around like a “drunken cockatoo”? The president’s sex hair, according to Stormy Daniels.

That’s right, the pοrn star and president’s alleged mistress has shared more details of her time with Trump, and this time she got even more descriptive. …

The most interesting part of the article might be when she lifts the veil (or should we say, toupee?) on Trump’s questionable hairstyle — the slightly orange, very thin, double comb-over that looks like it should move a lot more than it does.

Trump’s both perpetrator and victim of a superficial focus on politicians, of course, with his remarks about Carly Fiorina’s face perhaps the most memorable example of the former. We shouldn’t kid ourselves about that or about the fact that women in general have a tougher time with it, but the media had a field day with Trump’s looks in the 2016 cycle. I’m also old enough to remember when Paul Simon’s homely visage got comments during the 1988 Democratic presidential primary. And ask yourselves this: when was the last time America elected a bald man president? It was 1956, with Dwight Eisenhower re-election, before the era of TV made looks so important. Why did radio listeners think Richard Nixon won the 1960 presidential debate, but TV viewers thought John Kennedy won? Why has every major-party presidential candidate until the 2016 election had to be physically attractive?

Clinton also complained that the “lock her up” chant was a reaction to the idea of a woman in power:

Gillard had told Clinton that she was referred to as a “witch” and mentioned how Clinton faced “lock her up” chants during the campaign.

“There is this fear, there is this anger, even rage about women seeking power, women exercising power and people fall back on these attacks like you’re a witch or you should go to prison,” Clinton continued. “It’s not a majority, thank goodness, it’s not, but it’s a very vocal minority at least in my country. And sometimes these tropes are very much part of the press coverage.”

That’s even more nonsensical than complaining about superficiality. The “lock her up” chants referred to her corruption at the State Department in using a secret, unauthorized, and unsecured e-mail server for official communications. Clinton violated the Federal Records Act and allowing her to falsely represent to Congress and federal courts that she had no e-mails responsive to legitimate records demands. She didn’t get charged for the highly illegal transmission of dozens of top-secret pieces of information through that unauthorized system, thanks to a very questionable decision by James Comey and Loretta Lynch. Trump repeatedly called that decision out as a representation of the way the “swamp” stacks the deck for its favorites and against the American people, which is why “Lock her up!” became one of the rally cries during his campaign. This is nothing more than a flat-out lie from Clinton, and a transparently self-serving one at the expense of American voters.

At least these are very instructive moments for American voters, though. This what the Clintons and the Democratic establishment truly think of them. That should be quite helpful in discernment about their ballot decisions in November.