Do I believe John Edwards when he denies he fathered a love child while his wife battled terminal cancer?

No.

The simple reason for my disbelief is that Edwards is a self-described moral relativist – someone who doesn't really believe in right or wrong or immutable standards of behavior.

What I can't understand is why a moral relativist would try to hide his bad behavior from public view.

Oh yeah, I remember. John Edwards is a politician. And his job, most of the time, when he's not chasing ambulances, is to confuse the public about what he really believes. He knows, in his dark heart of hearts, that his own ethics – or lack thereof – would be anathema to the vast majority of voters, even members of his own morally ambiguous party.

But he can't fool me.

Because I have a memory.

There was a seminal moment in the Democratic primary campaign that blew my mind.

It was a moment of candor.

It was a moment of honesty.

It was a shocking moment of insight into the shadowy soul of one who refuses to make moral judgments – even as it pertains to the way his own children are raised.

That moment came Sept. 26, 2007, at the Democratic presidential debate in Dartmouth, New Hampshire.

This is the question that exposed who and what Edwards truly is: "The issues surrounding gay rights have been hotly debated here in New England. For example, last year some parents of second graders in Lexington, Massachusetts, were outraged to learn their children's teacher had read a story about same-sex marriage, about a prince who marries another prince. Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, but most of you oppose it. Would you be comfortable having this story read to your children as part of their school curriculum?'"

(Column continues below)

And here is the answer: "Yes, absolutely. What I want is I want my children to understand everything about the difficulties that gay and lesbian couples are faced with every day, the discrimination that they're faced with every single day of their lives. And I suspect my two younger children – Emma Claire, who's 9, and Jack, who's 7 – will reach the same conclusion that my daughter, Cate, who's 25, has reached, which is she doesn't understand why her dad is not in favor of same-sex marriage, and she says her generation will be the generation that brings about the great change in America on that issue. So I don't want to make that decision on behalf of my children. I want my children to be able to make that decision on behalf of themselves, and I want them to be exposed to all the information, even in, ah, did you say second grade? Second grade might be a little tough, but even in second grade to be exposed to all, ah, to all of those possibilities because I don't want to impose my view. Nobody made me God. I don't get to decide on behalf of my family or my children, as my wife, Elizabeth, who's spoken her own mind on this issue. I don't get to impose on them what it is that I believe is right."

With a response like that, is it really any wonder that John Edwards might decide he can't wait until his wife, Elizabeth, dies of cancer before seeking the companionship of another woman?

Is it any wonder he would sire another child or two to whom he has no moral obligations?

Is it any wonder he would leave his wife, suffering from Stage 4 breast cancer, and little children behind in North Carolina while sowing his wild oats in California?

No, it isn't any wonder at all.

The only wonder is why he tries to hide it all.

But that is not really a wonder, is it?

Because John Edwards is a politician. He knows that to get what he really wants, namely power, he has to pretend to be something he is not. What he is not is a devoted husband, a caring and faithful father, a man of integrity.

No wonder John Edwards doesn't have a problem with same-sex marriage – marriage doesn't mean that much to John Edwards.

No wonder John Edwards wouldn't mind if some perverted schoolteacher lectured his 7-year-old about homosexuality – his own kids don't mean that much to John Edwards.

No wonder John Edwards believes it's government's job to meet the needs of children, the elderly, the jobless and less fortunate – because John Edwards has no concept of real compassion, not even for his own family.

Related offer:

"Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party"