A reader writes:

It's good John Edwards the monster has been exposed for what he is, but it's also the case that - despite Elizabeth's suffering and her facing death, and bless her for all that - she was party to what could have been almost as (or perhaps even more) deadly as Palin becoming President after a McCain death.  In both cases, all parties knew full well the long term implications of their choices, and yet chose the short view - and low road - anyway.

As for the Enquirer and any Pulitzer talk, I simply cannot go there at all, for both the reasons you mention about the sanctity of people's sex lives, but also because their reporters were not going after this story for any concerns about our republic or protecting our electorate or presenting the truth as a responsibility of the fifth column or anything patriotic or noble such as that.  They went after it to sell copy and make a buck, and it's simple and prurient as that.  Period.  Rewarding that intention - no matter the outcome - with a Pulitzer induces nausea that makes my reaction to what the Edwards's did evaporate by comparison. 

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.