Commentaries appear at regular intervals. If you would like an invited commentary for your publication, please let me know!

There's a special place in Hell for people like Bill Clinton. People who lie about everything in their lives. From his wedding vows to his political promises, Bill Clinton has never made a promise or statement where he wasn't willing to lie.

Now he can be assured he won't be alone in that special place. He will be joined by his corps of Spin Doctors. Willing lackeys in the media who do their best to spin his deceit into something more palatable. The latest travesty comes from Marianne Means in her column titled Men show their sensitive sides in political weepstakes.

First, Ms. Means open up with a salvo against President Ronald Reagan. Yes, the man who is both ALL POWERFUL when it comes to "slashing" and "savaging" programs for the "poor, minorities, elderly, women and children" and THE TRAGIC FOOL when it comes to anything good that may have happened during his administration. Declaring that "It's all Ronald Reagan's fault." she tries to build the foundation that weeping on cue is nothing new and just another evil Republican ploy.

The fact is, though, that President Reagan never did what Bill Clinton did. I'm referring, of course, to the events immediately following a service for Ron Brown. President Clinton was leaving the event, joking with his entourage (not a bad thing in and of itself) when he sights a TV camera.

The President immediately broke into fake sobs and wiped imaginary tears from his face.

It was perhaps the most disgusting—if not the most vile—politicization of a tragedy I have ever seen. And it was just a small part of the campaign by liberals to turn the death of Ron Brown into a political event. Of all the politically motivated attacks to come out of the Clinton administration, only the attempts to link the Oklahoma City bombing to the Republican Party comes close to this.

For Ms. Means, however, the task is damage control. She must make it seem like what Bill Clinton did is nothing new, nothing out of the ordinary...and anyone who makes a comment about crying is a cretin.

You have to feel sorry for her. It's such a hopeless task. But any thoughts of sympathy evaporate as she moves from an attack on Ronald Reagan to George Bush and Clarence Thomas. Who does she think she is to malign honest emotion from these great men? That she does it in an attempt to defend one of the sleaziest administrations in history is bad enough. That she tries to tear down past office holders in an attempt to make Clinton look less awful is unforgivable.

As bad as that is, Ms. Means can't help making herself look worse by extending her errors to include hypocrisy, accusing Rep. Waldholtz of using tears for deception (she is, after all, a Republican), then lambasting people for talking of Rep. Schroeder's tears in 1987 when her bid for the Democratic nomination evaporated like the morning dew.

In a final lame attempt to salvage the President's reputation, she states that it's a good thing crying is okay now (huh?) because good men like Edmund Muskie were prevented from holding office for being teary-eyed.

Though she failed miserably at defending the President, she did do some good. Now we all now it's okay for the President to burst into tears when his own Presidency dissolves in scandal, just like that devil incarnate, Richard Nixon. I'm sure Ms. Means will be back after Clinton weepily bids goodbye with a column stating how "it's all Richard Nixon's fault" that Clinton's presidency failed and that the President shouldn't be judged harshly for something his wife did. Like look through 900 FBI files.

Bill Clinton has never made a promise or statement where he wasn't willing to lie.

Ms. Means open up with a salvo against President Ronald Reagan.

The President immediately broke into fake sobs and wiped imaginary tears from his face.

Though she failed miserably at defending the President, she did do some good.