This isn’t even the most cynical identity-politics pander by a Democratic politician in the news today. Karen has a post coming up about Elizabeth Warren’s newfound love of Super PACs and I don’t want to step on it, but take a minute to watch this clip. Warren opposed having her own Super PAC because she didn’t want to encourage “dark money” from fatcats in politics, but now, with her chances at the nomination disappearing, she’s decided to change course — as a matter of feminism.

What’s that claptrap about the two women in the race fighting at a disadvantage? A less sanctimonious politician would have owned her shift in strategy forthrightly: “I unilaterally disarmed on outside money, hoping to set an example for the field, but it didn’t work and I’m going to lose if I stick by my principles so my principles are out the window.” But Warren’s self-righteous even by Washington standards so her sellout has to be dressed up as a blow for gender equality. Please, don’t for a moment believe that she’s going to let rich people start bankrolling her out of simple greed and ambition. She’s doing it because she owes it to the women of America not to let the fellas walk all over her.

If only she’d had this feminist epiphany months ago, she might not be on the brink of collapse. But no, she probably would be anyway: She’s never had the nerve to really hit Bernie so more resources wouldn’t have saved her.

Anyway, I digress. It’s this idiot whom we’re here to see:

It’s probably true at the margins that the involvement of a second woman in Hill’s sex scandal piqued voter interest. I think it’s very likely true that the fact that Hill herself is a woman made the story more sensational, as it’s usually male pols at the center of sex scandals.

But I’m also thinking that a male politician who introduced America to the word “throuple”, with all sorts of lurid photos circulating to illustrate the concept, and then admitted to boinking an aide while that aide worked for him on his congressional campaign would be in a world of sh*t politically even if he were straight as an arrow. “It’s weird how Sinema’s bisexuality isn’t an issue because she hasn’t violated ethics but Katie Hill is Mandela,” sniffed Stephen “redsteeze” Miller after watching Hill’s interview this morning.

It’s the ethical lapse that imperiled Hill’s career but it’s the three-way relationship that grabbed public attention, far more so than her sexual preference. The story might have drawn even more buzz if the “throuple” had included her and two straight men instead of a man and a woman. It’s revealing that Hill, who’s otherwise so eager in the clip to scold people for trying to shame her, overlooks her highly unusual relationship dynamic and instead focuses on the far less unusual fact that she’s attracted to both men and women. That’s cynical but politically shrewd: Many Americans agree that there’s nothing wrong with or notable about being attracted to the same sex, but shtupping your aides? And throupling up? It’s harder to be a martyr on those grounds.