She is simply the result of an already supposed "break down" of the American family.
She has no obligation to the population. She did not offer herself or was elected to represent anyone.
She was simply an ordinary individual, free to live on her own moral and other terms.
It is the President who chose to represent and also represented the (supposed) morality (or lack of) of the U.S.A.
It is the President who demonstrated the prevailing (at that time) morality of the U.S.A.
If she seeks to and/or profits from her actions, she is simply functioning in a market economy which is the anchor of the U.S.A.
A market driven economy is generally opposed to family life.
Women who are the anchor of family life are recognized in a market economy as only tools of and for business and the business class.
If they are executives, they are committed to their jobs, to the extent that they will leave their works place for just a couple weeks to deliver their baby. This is the actual extent of their family life commitment.
Seems to me that family life requires a full time, at home with the children, mother. This is anti U.S.A.
Even in the most ordinary household both parent are required to work, sometimes at two jobs.
Get real my friends.
