The President's journey from controversy to controversy in recent weeks happened more by accident than by design, writes Mark Brennock, Chief Political Correspondent
The President is making news again. In the space of a few weeks she has made a rousing speech in which she was perceived to be defending the traditional nationalist view of 1916; addressed a conference in Saudi Arabia where women were segregated behind a screen; told the Saudis that the Irish people abhorred the publication of the cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, and roused the Rev Ian Paisley to condemn her over the security details of her trips across the Border.
The constitutional restrictions on the role of president mean that the incumbent rarely says or does anything of political controversy.
She seeks to represent herself and her State in as inclusive a way as possible - indeed recent presidents have used the word "inclusive" an awful lot. It is therefore unusual that Mrs McAleese finds herself under attack simultaneously from those who dislike the Saudi regime, those who see the 1916 legacy as more complex than it seemed in 1966, and those unionists who dislike most things about her.
She is not personally responsible for all these controversies. Presidents are sometimes criticised for actions which they undertake less out of personal choice than out of the duties of office.
A president who visits Saudi Arabia - "a friendly state" as a Government spokeswoman pointed out this week - must sometimes address audiences segregated by gender.
When Mary Robinson visited Chile, protocol required that she shake hands with the widely reviled former leader General Augusto Pinochet.
If a president did not want to visit a certain country, it is unlikely that the government of the day would press him or her to go. But presidents are not expected to be very fussy in this regard. Government delegations visiting China make ritual expressions of concern about human rights to their hosts before getting down to discussing business.
Similarly, the President is expected to head up trade delegations to countries run by less than perfect regimes and not to denounce her hosts along the way.
The visit to Saudi Arabia therefore did not involve some personal statement of approval of or indifference to the regime - indeed, she implied politely in interviews that she did not approve of the treatment of women there. She has also said that her remark that the Irish people abhorred the publication of the controversial cartoons was only part of what she said on the subject.
"I reiterated the view that is the European Union's view . . . which is that we abhor the violence that broke out in the wake of the publication of the cartoons, but at the same time we also abhor the fact that anyone would be so insensitive to another faith."
Her speech on 1916 was, however, a personal choice and was reported fairly - indeed it was published in full in this newspaper. In it she portrayed the 1916 Rising as the key historical moment which above all others, led to the creation of the modern Irish State.
She said its leaders were "our idealistic and heroic founding fathers and mothers, our Davids to their Goliaths".
This is a contentious view, widely accepted within Fianna Fáil, but disputed by many others. Both the timing and content of her speech dovetailed with the Government's effort to reclaim the legacy of 1916 from Sinn Féin. Despite this, it is believed that she chose to make the speech without prompting from the Government, although it was cleared in advance as normal through the Taoiseach's office.
While putting forward an older interpretation of the Rising, she spoke too with respect and empathy for those who died at the Somme in the same year.
This 90th anniversary of both had "the potential to be a pivotal year for peace and reconciliation, to be a time of shared pride for the divided grandchildren of those who died, whether at Messines or in Kilmainham". She was careful not to abandon the inclusiveness she has voiced since her election.
The DUP, along with many of those in the Republic who criticise her view of the Rising as simplistic and inaccurate, were suspicious of this President before any of the recent events. She is a northern nationalist woman whose commitment to Catholicism is also a central part of her public identity. Indeed, she joined a delegation from the Catholic hierarchy at the New Ireland Forum in 1984.
Significant elements of the Republic's intelligentsia and bourgeoisie squirm at this combination of traditional elements: commentator Eoghan Harris once referred to her as a "tribal time bomb".
While few would use such robust language, many would balk at her Catholic nationalism, seemingly less diluted by the liberalism and European-ness which many contemporary Irish have embraced and melded into their sense of identity.
However, she won over many of these critics in the early years of her Presidency, taking inclusive (that word again) positions on a variety of issues. Her husband Martin worked quietly at building his own contacts and relationships with Northern loyalists.
She has nevertheless become a particular target for the DUP, with the Rev Ian Paisley recently claiming she does not observe proper protocol when she visits Northern Ireland. The Government insists she does, that she notifies the Northern Ireland Office, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda and visits the local Lord Lieutenant.
Dr Paisley's complaint appears relatively banal: it is that she does not enter police stations when changing from her Republic of Ireland car to the car provided by the PSNI. Government sources say this changeover, which Government Ministers travelling North do regularly as well, often occurs at a roundabout or on the side of the road.
They also point out that Mrs McAleese has met the North's Chief Constable, Sir Hugh Orde, at police headquarters in Knock and so has no phobia about visiting police stations. Government sources profess not to know what the fuss is about.
The fuss in relation to the DUP's criticism of her began a year ago, after the President appeared to compare how some Protestants taught their children to view Catholics to the way Nazis taught their young to view Jews.
"They gave to their children an irrational hatred of Jews," she said in an interview, "in the same way that people in Northern Ireland transmitted to their children, an irrational outrageous hatred, for example, of Catholics, in the same way that people give to their children, an irrational outrageous hatred of those who have different colour." She apologised quickly, acknowledging that sectarianism was a shared problem and not monopolised by one tradition.
The DUP has criticised her regularly since then. At a recent party conference, Dr Paisley said he does not like her and finds her dishonest - a not entirely unsurprising revelation. Dr Paisley was almost certainly giving his honest view, but is also likely to have been pursuing a political agenda of his own.
The softening of unionist attitudes towards the Republic in recent years has led to a greater tolerance of the idea of negotiation and compromise with the Government here - something which is not on the DUP agenda now.
DUP attacks on the President may be designed to suggest to unionists that despite the long thaw in relations, the Republic is not to be trusted and remains full of unionist-hating nationalists.
In summary, it appears that the Saudi visit was in line with what is expected of a president; the Nazis remark was a gaffe for which she apologised quickly; the quibbling about her security arrangements when in Northern Ireland remains something of a mystery; and the 1916 speech was an expression of her own outlook, shared by the Government of the day if not by all traditions in this State.
The fact that these events came in rapid succession is down to circumstances and not to anypresidential scheming to raise her profile by becoming a controversialist.