Because he does not.

This week, there's been a lot of media scrutiny leveled at beleaguered former congressman Anthony Weiner, or as I liked to think of him until recently, Huma Abedin's Husband. Huma Abedin is vice chair of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, and, on this podcast, apparently also a very nice person. Anthony Weiner hasn't been in Congress since a sexting scandal led to his resignation in 2011.

Despite all manner of judgmental thinkpieces amounting to that classic refrain leveled somehow only at women—"But whyyyyeeeeeee didn't you leave"—Abedin stayed married to Weiner and even encouraged him to run for New York City mayor in 2013, before that campaign was derailed by even more sexting problems. The end of Weiner's career in politics was captured in all of its funny, strange, sad glory in the movie Weiner, which is one of the best political documentaries I've ever seen, and does a lot to both humanize Weiner and contextualize Abedin's decision to—at least initially—stay married to him.

But now they're separating following yet another episode of leaked sexts, and somehow Donald Trump feels like this is his business—perhaps he enjoys having a distraction from his own staff, which each day looks more and more like the Sexual Harassment Dream Team—and Anthony Weiner is essentially being treated like he's still in office, when he is, in fact, a stay-at-home dad. A lot of publications are reading a LOT into the somewhat sad private life of an adult man whose connection to politics is increasingly tenuous. I suppose pretty people divorcing is fair game for TMZ, but don't the political reporters at the Washington Post and the New York Times have better things to do with their time?

At NY Magazine, Rebecca Traister injects some welcome level-headedness into the conversation:

Here’s the thing: There is no reason for there to be political fall-out from this. There is an increased likelihood of TMZ coverage and fantastic tabloid headline puns. But nothing in this silly, sad story has any bearing on the presidential campaign. The fact that we are talking about it like it does is a result of the hungry media’s attempt to maintain the fantasy that there is any equivalence between Hillary Clinton, a competent candidate whose politics you can love or hate, and Donald Trump, a man best summed up by some of his Scottish critics as a “weapons-grade plum.” New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman tweeted Monday morning that the Weiner story is a “problem for Clinton team” since after Trump’s recent hire of Steve Bannon “Democrats repeatedly pointed to Bannon’s personal past” making it “hard to argue Weiner is off limits.” But Bannon, a white nationalist media entrepreneur, is in the employ of the Trump campaign, and the personal past Haberman was referring to involved divorce proceedings in which his ex wife claimed he had violently assaulted her and also made anti-Semitic comments, Haberman later tried to clarify that her tweet was meant in reference to the Bannon divorce and was not “equating a police report with the Weiner situation.” But as with the Washington Post, this clarification didn’t help much. We are still in the fairyland of false equivalence.

Anthony Weiner, so far as we know, is a putz who’s way too enamored of his own putz, and has until recently been married to a woman who works for a woman who is running for president. End of story.

So to everyone desperate to mount some kind of cogent comparison between Donald Trump’s hate-fueled campaign and the bad taste in men evident on his opponent’s team, I just want to say what Huma finally said to Anthony: GTFOH.

Anthony Weiner continues to do dumb things. This isn't surprising. It certainly isn't news. And, as Traister and others have said, it shouldn't be treated is if it has any serious bearing on the presidential election. Isn't it enough of a shitshow already?