Wonk watchers have been panting for Hillary Clinton aide and classy Vogue lady Huma Abedin and Congressman/mayoral hopeful Anthony Weiner to hook up for a while now, and today the Observer reports that they probably definitely are. Personally, we are not so turned on by this; we find it kind of off-putting when politicians have sex lives. It's like when you find out that your parents do it: First of all, ew, and, secondly, shouldn't you be spending your every waking moment taking care of us? That said, we understand the appeal of a Huma-Weiner union: They are both single up-and-comers of a certain age, they are both relatively attractive, and, perhaps most importantly, the congressman's last name is Weiner, a name that we as mature people tend to find endlessly hilarious. However, we take issue with the headline the Observer went with: "Is Hillary's Sultry Aide Waxing Congressman's Weiner?" Why did they bring "waxing" into it when simplicity is clearly best? Is something going unreported here? Did someone tell Spencer Morgan that Huma is into hairless wieners? Or! Is the Observer saying that because she works for Hillary she's a masochist? Because, if they are, that is so wrong. Almost as wrong as putting the sentence "Huma is into hairless wieners" onto the Internet. Twice.

Is Hillary's Sultry Aide Waxing Congressman's Weiner [NYO]