Meh. While email hacks are obviously different than "whistleblowing" nobody would be batting an eye if somebody had hacked a trove of Mafia (or other organized crime) emails and released them publicly.

The reality is that sometimes hacking is in the public interest and sometimes it's not, but figuring out when is not easy or black and white.

One aspect to these discussions that I find sort of befuddling is the idea that somehow those involved in "making the news" (so to speak) shouldn't have to think about what they're saying or how they're saying it unless they're "on the record," that we should expect their public face to be a mask hiding any insight into the private face behind it, and that somehow they ought to be magically protected from the potential publicizing of recordings, hacks, or eavesdropping.

Clearly the public at large is somewhat jaded and cynical, but there's still a very obvious desire to have "honest" and "open" candidates who make their goals, intentions, and ideologies clear. Of course the public theoretically wants to know how the sausage is made.

That the candidates can't recognize this and can't or won't operate as though the public might be watching without crying foul seems to me a bigger farce than pretending that one's own words are a conspiracy... but what do I know?

I guess the idea that one ought to maintain some level restraint and conviviality both publicly and privately is dated and quaint.