"We are supposed to ride with this couple through her cancer diagnosis and relapse, through their son's death, their fertility treatments, and the rededication of their marriage, but then we are supposed to butt the hell out when the story line veers from the tragedy and heroics."

Yes, that's what you're supposed to do. I can listen sympathetically to the fact that she lost her child and may well be dying of cancer without expecting to be informed about whether her husband cheated on her. Unless they have something to do with me or the operation of government, what personal details of her life she chooses to share is up to her. That's what "privacy" means. She may share some and not others; that is absolutely her right, unless his affair affects me, which it does not. The fact that sharing one personal story may lead people to WANT to know everything about you does not mean that it ENTITLES them to know everything about you.

I repeat: unless it has something to do with me or the operation of government, she has the right to decide which personal details of her life she wants to discuss, just like everyone else.

How on earth have we reached the point where we can look at a woman who has lost a child, has advanced cancer, and has had to repair a marriage after an affair, and we can nevertheless persuade ourselves that we are entitled to some righteous indignation because she's asking not to rehash the affair?

Basically you are right about the individual chooses what is private. So Elizabeth Edwards may remain private and not hounded on the subject.

But, in public life when John Edwards denies having an affair or when he says that if a man has affairs you can use that to measure his fitness to hold public office, then it is fair to look at that aspect in him.

Note how it reveals poor judgment in Edwards in regards to Rielle who evidently notified the Enquirer and must have taken the pictures of Edwards in the hotel room (that or the agents of the Enquirer have commited a serious crime). If Edwards couldn't deny himself Rielle what else can't he deny himself when choosing between himself and what is good for the public? Money, power, fame.

them all. He also wanted a woman not his wife. In that case, he should have taken himself OUT of public life, totally, meaning out of the Presidential primary campaign. The Top Poster is being naive & unrealistic; Elizabeth Edwards is not only a hugely courageous human being and a mother, she IS a political wife. Sorry, allison jane, but the spotlight, sadly unrelenting as it is, comes with the turf. Hillary Clinton knew that, or learned that. Now it is Elizabeth Edwards' turn.

I am not, in the least, naive. I understand that being subjected to this kind of scrutiny and brutal examination of private matters is the way politics works right now; witness what is happening right this minute with this story.

I am simply saying that to me, the fact that it works this way is not right. It isn't naive to believe things should work differently than they do. I absolutely understand that this is the journalism we now have. We have done away with privacy. I'm just saying that to me, it's remarkably sad that you can actually find a journalist sarcastically saying, essentially, "What are we supposed to do, treat you like a human being?" That's how this reads to me.

Incidentally, I am no more interested in the details of John McCain's life than John Edwards's, despite the fact that McCain is currently running for office, and Edwards, you know, isn't.

This isn't new journalism.

This isn't the creation of a new form of media.

It goes back as far as having elections generally.

Heck, look at Alexander Hamilton, he suffered from a similar controversy.

The reason this stuff makes the news is because infidelity can lead to blackmail, can lead to lawsuits, to arrests, or, dare I say, impeachment?

To say it does not affect you, means you are ignoring history and facts. This is not just a personal matter.

The truth is, that the first politician to NOT bring his/her family on the campaign trail, to deny reporters access to interview his/her family.... THAT politician can be angry when the personal/private line is crossed.

Mr Family Man with the blogging wife? Not so much.

Have we devoted more news cycles than this is worth? Absolutely.

Did these people, people who we think are intelligent, people who watched Bill Clinton get impeached for affair related business.... did they REALLY think they should run with this in their closet? Does anyone really think they didn't bring this onto themselves?

Does Elizabeth Edwards deserve the media circus around her house? No. Does she deserve to turn on the news and be spared having the country talk about this? No again... she should leave the TV off for a while.

We are talking about a man who still has several delegates pledged to him... we aren't talking about a nobody.

I am less interested in the sorrid details of Edwards tryst, then the details surrounding all those secret payments to Hunter, to keep her mouth shut.

It has all the appearance of Blackmail.

It also has all the makings of one of those Law and Order "ripped from the headlines" episodes. Ot at least a skit on SNL. I could see Kristen Weig playing Hunter and that Sedakis guy playing Edwards. I'm not sure who could play Liz Edwards, but Amy Poehler would have to play Hillary giving Liz advise on how to turn this whole sorrid mess into a bid for at least the Senate, if not a shot at the White House.

Hillary giving Liz advise on how to turn this whole sorrid mess into a bid for at least the Senate, if not a shot at the White House.

Hahaha. Funny. Wish I'd have said it.

Update: It's hard whether to respect & admire Elizabeth Edwards for her recent book & "confessions" ... or to pity her as just another cheated-on wife, a la Mrs. Eliot Spitzer. Personally, I have feelings both way but am trying hard to go with Option A. When will these guys ever learn that cheating on The Wife just does not cut it, in such a visible & highly under-the-microscope career environment?