If the person is a hypocrite that is true, which amounts to saying that George Washington's repeatedly observed partaking of Communinion made him a hypocrite of the worst sort if he were not a Christian.
Cordially,
There's a difference between hyprocrisy and accepting reality. The most famous and powerful leaders in a country are usually (not always, as certain 3rd World hellholes often demonstrate) a whole lot smarter, better educated, and better informed than the great masses they govern. A few centuries ago, in some countries, it was necessary for public figures to publicly agree with Catholic Church teaching that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Many of them, including many of the Church officials who promulgated it, knew better. But the clueless masses believed because the Church made such a big deal out of declaring it "heresy" to believe or say otherwise. And leaders who had more important objectives, weren't "hypocrites" for sidestepping the pointless debate with the corrupt Church and the clueless masses, and getting themselves overthrown or even tossed in prison. No, they were just dealing with reality, and accepting the things that they obviously weren't in a position to change.
Today, leaders of several Islamic countries are in the same position, e.g. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The leaders of those countries don't for a second believe all the literal Islamic nonsense, but they know what would happen if they came out and said so. So they keep making a show of practicing Islam themselves, and keep their open criticism limited to the most extreme expressions of Islamic fanaticism. They're not being hypocrites, they just know they'd get themselves killed and replaced with true-believing fanatics if they said what they really think, and that that would end up get a lot of other people killed.
The Clintons are certainly hypocrites on many counts. But a lot of fine non-hypocritical political leaders in our country's past and present have made the same show of practicing an "acceptable to the masses" religion, because it's simply impossible to get elected otherwise, and they correctly believe that their other objectives (fighting terrorism, trimming the bloated federal government, or whatever their chief policy objectives are) are more important than telling the masses what they really believe in the area of religion.