We’ve heard all of the metaphors and similes related to women as to why Hillary Clinton should be President of the United States. “First woman President!” has been the rallying cry for many supporters as well as many in the media who have been cheerleading her (despite the nonsense about “tough” or “negative” coverage).

That isn’t a problem. It is expected and if Hillary wins it will be historic.

The problem with both the left and the media is they cannot seem to figure out what Hillary Clinton is. They cannot decide or they know and deliberately choose whichever theme fits best when they need it. Is Hillary Clinton the strong independent woman or is she the victim, requiring protection from all of the mean men in her life?

Frank Bruni wrote this awful piece describing men in Hillary’s life as “tormenters.” Susan touched on some of this in an article yesterday, focusing much of her attention on Bruni. While Bruni is a symptom that afflicts the media, he’s not the entire issue. His brethren in the media and naturally, Hillary Clinton supporters and campaign people make up the whole sickness that permeates the political landscape. He writes:

How much of her Achilles’-heel defensiveness is a byproduct of her marriage to Bill? When he was governor of Arkansas and when he ran for president in 1992, there were constant rumors of his philandering and a ceaseless effort to keep them from spreading. She learned early on to see the media as invasive, her opponents as merciless, and privacy as something to be guarded at all costs. That doesn’t excuse her use of a private email server as secretary of state, but it does help to explain it.

So her Bill’s philandering and the media attempting to get the story somehow explains Hillary, circumventing established State Department rules and possibly violating the law with a use of an off-site private email server during her tenure. In this scenario, Hillary’s victimhood is Bruni’s raison d’être.

It allows Bruni to show Hillary overcoming the odds to reach the US presidency. It’s an absurd argument to make. Hillary’s path to reach higher office went through the oval office when it was occupied by Bill (and at times, Monica Lewinsky). That and carpet-bagging to an easily winnable state got her elected Senator where she built a forgettable record. Naturally, her time in the Senate was only to prepare for the Presidency. Barack Obama spoiled those plans in 2008.

So she took on the tenure of Secretary of State leaving behind a terrible legacy and the Middle East that is in shambles. Still, the fawning press did nothing but praise her time there saying it padded her resume for another Presidential run.

A run, of course, that is paved with sexism along the way. You see, when Hillary is running, she’s the victim. It’s when she wins that she becomes the “strong independent, woman” who stood up to the icky men who would keep her down, simply because she doesn’t have a penis.

The left, and the media who will protect her will never shy away from using identity politics to explain away any issues or trouble she will have if she is elected President. The scandals will most likely happen. With they Clinton family, they almost always do. That doesn’t even include the intense pressure she will face in the realm of foreign policy, national defense and her domestic agenda.

By some miracle. Hillary may not be touched by scandal. And she may be more pragmatic as Commander-In-Chief than many people believe. That said, her media friends are going to have to make a decision. She cannot be both the victim and the second coming of Joan of Arc. They should make that decision and live with that decision.