Though I myself have never been caught running a pornographic live-cam side hustle after having asked a party’s voters to entrust me with its nomination, I think we can all agree that it’s the sort of “rookie mistake” anyone could have made.

But I am contemptuous of Gibson’s defense this morning — as mounted in a New York Times article on the scandal — that she is somehow the victim of a “leak” or an “invasion of privacy.” I can think of few things less capable of being characterized as an “invasion of privacy” than this situation. Mrs. Gibson made herself rather overly available to viewers — in fact charged quite a lot of money for it — and anybody who has so freely sold so much of themselves to so many strangers in such a public way cannot claim surprise to find it immediately being resold on the market when its value is the highest.

I actually find it more difficult to be funny about this story than I otherwise might, and the reason is that I’ll never understand the internal psychology of a person who engages in this sort of public exhibitionism, much less then goes out and seeks nomination for public office (Gibson’s primary was not a blowout by any means) with it not just in their past, but their active present.

[Another question would be — where was the Democrats’ state party on this? Didn’t anyone think to do a little defensive research on their candidates before the primary? But to Jeff’s point, we have reached a shameless stage in public life. Gibson undoubtedly resents having to answer for her sex-work career because she’s among progressives who insist that judgment can only be applied to conservatives and their choices. Gibson indeed brought this on herself and her family, but don’t expect pop culture to deal with that honestly. David’s take earlier today about Republicans pouncing® is going to be the norm rather than the exception here. — Ed]