By Janet Singleton

White House Social Secretary Desirée Rogers stepped down from her position this month, and said farewell: She told the Chicago Sun Times that serving the country “had been an honor and a privilege.” She was leaving, she said because she wants to “explore opportunities in the corporate world.” She denied her decision stems from the scandal in which a couple and a separate individual were able to sneak into a state dinner given by the Obama administration to honor Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in November.

Yet, rightly or wrongly, some observers will assume a connection exists between Rogers’ departure and “Gate-crasher-gate.” The people at the center of the incident, unwanted guests Michaele and Tareq Salahi, notorious low level fame-mongers, had little to lose when they entered the White House uninvited that night. But in the aftermath, it became clear that the professional reputations of Rogers and the head of Secret Service took a hit. The calls for her resignation from politicians and pundits were immediate and loud.

In February, almost three months after the incident, Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., member of the panel investigating the incident, sent Rogers a letter posing 15 questions about what went wrong. Any of three possibilities—whether the missive represents partisan harassment, a logical inquiry, or a combination thereof— could be reasonably argued.

Rogers had admitted that she sent no representatives from her department to stand by the entrances that evening to make sure those streaming into the White House grounds were legitimate invitees, as is protocol. Secret Service agents did not respond as two Washington Post reporters, who knew that the Salahis did not belong, attempted to alert government staffers. The poison pair was able to progress through the reception line. They achieved contact with the President, got coveted pictures taken, and stayed on the mansion grounds for two hours.

Yes, the Salahis were lampooned as clowns by Saturday Night Live and other comedy outlets. But the worst-case scenario for that evening was anything but funny. In an age of suicide bombers and an American commander-in-chief who has had more death threats than any other, this constituted horrendous negligence.

The White House shielded Rogers against a requested appearance at the inquest. Later, a party-line vote nullified a subpoena. But this produced only more fodder for her critics, who charged that she was too busy mingling with guests and showing off her Commes des Garcons gown to do her job that evening.

“She likes to party,” wrote well-known right-wing vampire, Michelle Malkin, on her blog site, in a clumsy attempt to make the Harvard MBA super-achiever and breast-cancer survivor seem like a stiletto-strapped, staggering, bong-wielding damsel of easy virtue. One would hope the social secretary favored parties—planning them was critical to her job. And, despite the carping of her critics, that Rogers was loved by the fashion industry and that this is the first Administration since the Kennedy era deemed to be overwhelmingly attractive weren’t shallow, trifling considerations. The clothing and cosmetics businesses are vital and vitalizing; they are conduits to people’s hearts.

Still, the more sympathetic, left-of-center constitutional law expert Linda R. Monk, J.D., wrote an article for the Huffington Post titled: “Diva in the White House: Does Desirée Rogers Have the Obamas’ Back?” She complained, “Everyone, repeat everyone, is responsible for President Obama’s security.” Later in her piece, she said, “The Obamas came . . . with a Chicago clique that can sometimes act as though they made the President, not the other way around.”

Rogers likely should have gone before Congress and confessed to not being flawless. As Monk says, we are all responsible for the President’s safety, but the practical reality is that we are not all in charge. The social secretary should have shared the blame with the Secret Service, but not equally.

Rogers may have been over-protected— straight out of the door. “Gate-crasher-gate” had the terrible effect of highlighting her friendship with the Obamas and obscuring the qualifications of a woman whose résumé one writer termed “platinum.” The now-former White House social secretary has a long history of turning around challenging situations in troubled public and private organizations, of moving mountains while fetchingly dressed. Had Barack Obama not known her from Adam, she would have been an excellent candidate for her job.

No one knows, however, all of the social wedgies that are possible in high-level politics, where even the best of people may stumble at least once in front of a public eye that never blinks. Rep. King’s letter made it clear that Obama opponents would continue to look for a bulls-eye pattern on every pretty frock Rogers wore. Where they found a nugget of truth they would make it into a cannonball. And she stepped down. Maybe she has the Obamas’ back, after all.

Janet Singleton is an award-winning journalist and novelist.