"people have sex, and people lie about it"

Maybe they do, but that does not entitle them to do it with furvor. Lying about anything, sex or otherwise, is bad news for anyone. You may get away with it in your lifetime, but you still have to answer for it when you meet your maker and you better hope He doens't send you where you feel you do not belong.

You have to answer to someone - everyone does eventually. Even Godless wonders like Sam Adams. A criminal investigation will be a mere pittance compared to when he meets his maker in the end result of his life. This is where I acutally pity his poor existance.

Ahh, Eric, I can see Christian forgiveness dripping from your post, like blood from a stake.

Forgive the sinner, but not the sin. That's what it is all about, Bob.

Sam can, and eventually will be forgiven, but he still has to account, and eventually pay, for his transgressions - either now with a resignation or later when he is his life is fully accounted for.

Today

This is not a hard question.

Political leaders should resign when their character and their judgment are revealed to be so lacking that they can't possibly lead anymore. When they are a predator instead of a mentor to a kid looking for his ideals. When they lie, repeatedly, to the people that they have sworn to serve.

In other words, Sam Adams should resign right now.

"But I also agree with Kari that mistakes were made here beyond just having sex."

And the passive voice --- the language of non-responsibility --- was used. When did a public official's decision to lie and then wage an all-out campaign to discredit a rumor later proven true -- and the accuser -- become just "mistakes?" And who made them?

I have consistently felt that personal legal sex stuff is not a reason to resign. Just take it forward. Do we want our officials so paranoid about expressing their sexuality that they're distracted from their official duties? Do we want an army of undercover Linda Tripps running the show? I admit part of my initial anger at all this was that I waited 8 years for the Bush administration to be over, and to have it affected at all by anything else was extremely irritating. I'm past that disappointment now. The part of this that still reeks is the Mercury reporter who admitted she wasn't qualified. The article says she was hired by Sam for her smarts, yet she says she never thought there could be any connection between her hiring and her investigation of this case. That doesn't sound too smart right there. My question is when WW interviewed Sam, 8 days ago now, she was present according to the article. That would indicate her job was tied into this. The sustainability aspect appears to be to sustain a BS cover story. I don't like the idea of paying someone 55 grand who isn't qualified because you need them to stop pursuing a story or to help you manage the spin. I'm not saying I know that definitively happened, but you tell me it doesn't look like it. Sam is an expert at taking every political advantage, even implying Bob Ball was vulnerable on the subject of underage sex, which seems quick malicious. I don't want somebody this mean and this dumb running the city. We've got better things to do. The Bush administration is over. I need to have a break in my life from waiting for some politician's time in office to end. I want to return to the government being a backdrop while we live our lives. I don't want to spend months and months wading through this. So summing up: Don't resign because of the guy - resign because of the female reporter whom you mysteriously hired when she had the dirt on you. You know: The one with all the smarts who couldn't even figure out you were lying about this.

Eric bathes himself in the gleeful delight that not he, but some unseen God, will burn people for all eternity. That makes it OK.

With forgiveness like this, who needs nukes?

There's no way that Sam should resign. I hope he has the courage to stay in office despite the outcry from all the nosey parkers (like the O. and the Trib) who have such a morbid interest in whatever happens in other people's bedrooms.

As for the lie, there's no shame in lying in reply to an unreasonable accusation from a political enemy. The original claim, during the campaign, was a classic "Have you stopped beating your wife" moment. Pure propaganda. It didn't even deserve the dignity of a denial.

Sam should stay the course, for the sake of the city. In these hard economic times, the city needs his energy, imagination and detailed knowledge of how the system works. The guy is good at his job, and it would hurt Portland if he were forced out.

His detractors, if they're so minded, should mount a recall effort in six months, as the law allows. Let the voters decide. My guess, they'll decide to keep Sam working to make the city better.

Oh, Eric. "Godless wonders like Sam Adams"? It's time to lay off Ann Coulter. Not that I'm accusing you of laying on Ann Coulter. Ugh!

I have to correct myself, I have previously said that Sam Adams should not resign and that the voters of Portland, OR should decide that in 2012.

RESIGN NOW SAM AND SAVE YOUR LAST SHRED OF DIGNITY AND INTEGRITY!

If you stay on, then every single skeleton in your entire closet will be aired and it will not just be the Portland media who does it.

How could the national media resist this debacle? It has all the ingredients:

1. A handsome young, now fallen politician

2. Sex

3. Cronyism (Amy Ruiz)

4. Lies

RESIGN NOW!

Everyone's "lines" are different I know. Here's mine of this situation, a situation that is filled with shades of gray. Let's play hypotheticals for just a minute, beginning with the basics---Sam is accused by Bob Ball of having a sexual relationship with an underage person and the press asks Sam about it. Realizing we'll never know the actual truth (unless someone has a time/date-stamped video of intimate acts somewhere), let's give Sam the benefit of the doubt on the underage piece of the story, just for the hypotheticals that follow: Possible reactions of Sam to the press questions and my reaction to them:

**Sam says "my personal life is not your business". (My reaction---right on, move on)

**Sam tells the truth--"I had a brief sexual relationship with a legal adult". (My reaction---bfd, move on).

**Sam lies--"I've never slept with that young man, when he was an adult and certainly not when he was underage" and he stops with that statement. Later, he admits he slept with the man (My reaction--again, bfd, his sex life, not my business, move on).

**Sam lies, convinces his lover to lie, holds a press conference at which he acts the part of the aggrieved party under attack by people trying to smear his entire reputation while he---HE---is actually the knight in shining armor, offering guidance and wisdom to a young man who was much like himself years ago. He's shocked that anyone would try and inpugn his integrity by suggesting an inappropriate relationship, nay a relationship of any kind beyond that of mentor/student. He attacks his opponent who brought the issue up and rallies his supporters to help destroy that man's chances at office. He continues to lie about everything until it is obvious that someone has dug up the truth about the situation and it's going to come out one way or another. Then and only then, does he admit the truth. And EVEN THEN, he LIES AGAIN. First we hear "yes, I had a relationship which developed out of the mentoring position I was in" THEN we hear "actually, there was no mentoring going on, it was just a sexual relationship". THIS is the difference in the situations-----he didn't JUST lie.....he lied, played the martyr, coerced others to lie, manipulated his supporters into attacking his opponent, continued to lie when asked and then we he came clean, HE LIED AGAIN about how the situation came about.

Seriously, keep him as mayor if you want. But for me, I wouldn't trust Sam Adams if he told me it was raining in Portland or the sky was gray.

He has blown his credibility entirely and acted not in the interest of the people of Portland, but only ever in his own self interest.....and that is where I draw the line.

Steve Duin's column from The Oregonian is pretty good: Don't give up, Sam, without a fight

Lying is wrong of course, but I have to say I don't blame him.

"The original claim, during the campaign, was a classic "Have you stopped beating your wife" moment. Pure propaganda. It didn't even deserve the dignity of a denial.

The problem is that the original claim, appropriate or not, was true, Adams had been "beating his wife". And Adams wrapped himself, and a number of supporters, in righteous indignation at having to deny it and triggered a reciprical character assassination campaign against the claimant. Again, the problem is that the claim was true.

We can argue the question of whether Adams should resign from the lofty perch of "pure" ethics til the cows come home, the bottom line is not an abstract, but whether Adams can still count the votes to move his agenda. If he can, then he should stay, if the well is truly poisoned then he's just marking time until he's recalled. If he broke the law, though, all bets are off and he should step down...

Let the man govern...if he doesn't do a good job....fire him....but is any doubting he isn't the right man for Portland. We don't need to waste time finding someone else. it was stupid to lie but I believe most of the people saying he should resign would of done the same thing. Mistakes happen when you want power but lying about sex is probably the weakest of all the bad one might do.

I draw the line at lying to serve one's own ambition. Just because "everyone lies" doesn't make it right. Perhaps I hold my political leaders to a higher standard, but why not? We entrust our leaders with considerable power and they should be held to a higher standard. I for one want my political leaders to reflect the best of what we can be.

"We just passed through a period where we had an admirable human being as a mayor. Admirable human beings aren't always great mayors, though. Sam has the chance to be a great mayor, and his resignation will force us to buy a pig in a poke--a slate of candidates we'll have just 3 months to consider, none of who will likely be as prepared or as experienced as Sam"

Too bad. Sam should have thought of that before he let his "little head" think for the big, main head. But, I guess, thinking isn't one of Sam's strong siuts in his culture.

My line is when the lying is about an issue directly related to the job they do for us.

Sex is no one's business but those involved. As far as I'm concerned people who are asked about their sex lives can lie, in fact I encourage them to lie because even though I may not give a crap other people will and they will not be judged fairly no matter what they say.

Seriously people, we are totally screwed in the head about sex in this country. We need to grow up.

"But, I guess, thinking isn't one of Sam's strong siuts in his culture."

"In his culture?" What kind of stereotyping is that?

Sam's lying matters, and is worthy of criticism, but I see again and again on this blog and others that homophobia is at the root of much of the criticism.

I wonder how people would react if Obama was caught in a scandalous lie, and when people with legitimate grievances showed up to protest, the KKK and a whole cast of malcontent bigots showed up too. That's the sort of thing that's going on in Portland right now.

As President Barack Obama answers America’s call for bold, visionary leadership, Portland’s civic leaders and elected officials are off to a false start over the Mayor’s sexual relationship with a teenager.

As reported in yesterday’s Oregonian, Sandra McDonough of the Portland Business Alliance and Leslie Carlson of the Sustainable Development Commission are ready to move on with business as usual, and none of Portland’s City Council members are willing to step up and lead the city in this time of crisis.

Apology made. Good! Apology accepted. Not so fast….

None of Portland’s other elected officials have spoken out publicly on the issue either, all waiting to see where the political winds will blow, whether Mayor Adams will be indicted down the line.

They work hard to get elected, and they love their jobs. They want to keep those jobs, hence the absence of clear statements over a situation that has an overwhelming abundance of clarity, moral and otherwise.

The million dollars of public money spent on electing Amanda Fritz to the City Council didn’t buy fifty cents’ worth of actual leadership, apparently, but merely wonkism and process and minutia. I am underwhelmed.

The City’s business is already disrupted by the disgrace, from yesterday’s cancelled council meeting to the negative publicity reaching a worldwide audience.

I have just seen the Mayor’s interview before the Oregonian Editorial Board, here: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/01/sam_adams_on_the_record.html

This video and others will find a permanent place on YouTube, reaching a universal audience, and there is no way to undo the damage.

A criminal investigation into this mess has its place, but the City and its citizens need to move forward TODAY. That will require a new mayor.

Portland’s City Council surely understands that fact. What is missing is the courage to step up, to speak out, even against a colleague, and lead!

Sex is not the issue to focus on. While I am personally troubled by Sam's lack of discretion regarding the age difference, it is not a crime, assuming he was 18. Regardless of 17 and 10 months or 18 and 1 month, the decision was unethical and inappropriate, at best, whether a public official or not.

I repeat again though that the issue is not sex. The issue is the behavior after the wrong doing. The extent of the lies and intentional cover up of a poor decision is the real issue. How can any citizen in Portland, or other official working with or for Sam Adams ever trust that he will be accountable for his mistakes in the future. If he is worried about the perception of the public for a particular mistake, at what lengths will he cover up those mistakes?


The real issue is that Sam's credibility is torn beyond repair because of how he handled himself, not because of what he did in the first place. I believe that most of the public could forgive, or at least look past a stupid mistake, as long as a public official took responsibility and admitted it with dignity.

Sam should resign immediately.

Ditto Ms. Mel Harmon. Perfect explanation of the difference between those four reactions.

It's NOT about the sex. It's clearly about the lying, the coercing Beau to lie, the righteous indignation in the face of the charge, and the complete and total loss of credibility now. Not to mention the Amy Ruiz thing, which would be even worse. This episode demonstrates Sam Adams' complete lack of scruples or boundaries in advancing his own career and agenda.

FACTS: 1. Sam did not seduce Breedlove, who has a history of hooking up with older men before Sam and since Sam. Breedlove did not seek a mentorship from Sam. Breedlove approached Sam and sought a meeting with Sam to "discuss politics", which was just a pretext for going on a date.

1. Breedlove was not a subordinate of Sam. The two were total strangers when they met.

2. Bob Ball's smears did not turn out to be true. Ball alleged that Adams was having sex with a minor. As far as anyone knows, that is false. The fact that there was a kernel of truth to Ball's smear campaign doesn't make Ball any less sleazy. Regardless of whether the story had any truth to it, Ball is a sleazeball for spreading rumors about his opponent for his own political gain.

3. No one seems to notice that, as far as I can tell, every single source for both the Willy Week and Oregonian coverage about this story is an ex-lover of either Sam or Breedlove. A handful of spurned lovers have concocted this whole circus in order to punish the two men. Isn't that a story?

Sam Adam's vision and passion for this city matter much more to me than his dishonesty about a sexual relationship. Our schools are in crisis, businesses are in crisis, etc. I believe and trust that Sam has the ability to not only overcome this sexual crisis, but to effectively deal with the crisis affecting all of us as a community. I run a small business, have a two year old and a baby about to pop out any day. I want excellent schools and an environment that my business can continue to thrive in. Sam has what it takes to help make these things happen.

STAY IN OFFICE, SAM!!!!! PLEASE!!!

"I do think he brings a unique vision and energy to Portland public life."

Like he did with Breedlove? I do not think Sam can garantee he won't do that again.

Politicians only resign at the last extremity. And this isn't even close.

Assuming the public thinks this is bad enough to lose one's job over...and considering Clinton's popularity at the end of his term, I doubt it...the next chance they'll get will be in 2012. Until then, the bottom line is Adams is mayor of Portland for the next four years and has the potential to do a lot of good for the city.

Do you want to be part of that, or do you want to spend the next four years bellyaching as if your party was still out of power.

Neopuritan Chickenshit Disease is threatening to kill the Democratic party just when we're getting ready to do some good. Time to circle the wagons and dispute the Republican frame that sex is unforgivably dirty (when a Democrat does it).

My sister worked for the Inaugural committee as a volunteer and got to go to a White House reception yesterday where she shook hands with Michelle Obama. It's such a great time right now. To think my beloved Portland, Oregon is on this trip during these exact moments is just not fair. I don't get why Nigel couldn't have waited another few days. Why now when things are so cool?

Any time your actions make it unable for you to serve effectively, you should go.

"Any time your actions make it unable for you to serve effectively, you should go"

Hear hear!

In addition, you could note that Sam has clearly shown that he can not make use of his off time in a very meaningful or constructive manner. He is acting as if he got bored and needed something to do with his off time - and now he is paying the price for his boredom.

"Any time your actions make it unable for you to serve effectively, you should go."

That may seem to be the case, given the media storm, but shouldn't we give this a little while to see if the business of the City can be done effectively?

Eric continues to remind is that it's about the sex and about what people do in their spare time.

I nominate Eric to be chief of the newly-organized "effective use of spare time" enforcement squad. His first job can be that of self-examination of his own blogging activity.

Bill McDonald, you wrote a good joke, right? If anyone, you know the details best from last Thursday's WW meeting with Sam, then until Monday where Sam calls WW to confess.

Adams told Nigel that he was spilling the confession and other facts to other media within 20 minutes of this call. If WW didn't post it on their website, it would certainly be posted or printed by the other media.

Sam picked the moment to ruin your sisters party. WW would have waited until their Wednesday printing, at least.

At least I am not out trolling for males/females that are half my age in order to have shtupping good time...

Thank you Eric for again pointing out that to you, it's about sex.

Excuse me....can we talk about something else...I am getting sore from all this flogging...

First, it wasn't my sister's party I was worried about. I actually didn't mention what's happening out here when I talked with her. It's not one of those things you call home about.

  I just wish the entire thing had been set in motion - including the Thursday meeting - after Inauguration Day was over.  
 Or even better, way before Inauguration Day. I know! Maybe even before the election. 
  If anything, I think I was feeling sorry for myself to have to follow this right now.
 Anyone in Portland who has counted the seconds 'til Bush and Cheney left office deserved a day of pure celebration. 
  I realize life doesn't work like that but I'm just saying it would have been nice. Let's just say the timing was unfortunate. 
 That was part of being annoyed at Sam: 
  Imagine having a chance to witness that scene in DC, and skipping it to come back here to deal with this instead. That's not the best judgement either, especially if you felt you were innocent. 
   Ridiculous.

Considering that the Democrat Party is filled with atheistic pedophiles, this shouldn't be any surprise to anyone with an I.Q. that allows for bladder self control.

If the President can be elected STRICTLY BY THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN, then it's not a stretch to think that a Democrat Mayor wouldn't have been voted into office strictly based on his sexual deviency, er, preference and in the the People's Republik of Portland no less, nor is it surprising that said Democrat Mayor would think he did nothing wrong in having perveted and twisted sex with an underage boy toy.

Once again, the lynchpin of Democrat Party politics has failed miserably. When you vote people into office based only on the color of their skin or their sexual preferences and not on the true issues of the day, not one iota of good can come from it.

But again, no big surprise here when you consider that the collective stupidity of the whiny, elitst, knee-jerk, bleeding-heart (ONLY for their own elitist ilk), uber-liberal Democrat Party is surpassed ONLY by their incredible and mind numbing intellectual dishonesty. Well, that as well as that the "Jackasss" is the PERFECT mascot for said Democrat Party.

God help us all indeed...

"A man who reads nothing is far smarter than a man who reads nothing but news." -- T. Jefferson, 1789

The comparison with Clinton, who committed war crimes in Iraq and Yugoslavia, is sickening. Clinton should have been impeached, convicted and imprisoned for the deaths of over 500,000 children, not for his sexual behavior. Your priorities are disgusting.

Incidentally, Europeans' age of consent is far lower than ours. They look at us as children.

"Sam sailed to an easy primary win was because he's spent 20 years preparing to be mayor."

That actually speaks against him, because in all that time it doesn't seem like he's learned the most important lessons: Don't be a sanctimonious ass while you're lying through your teeth. The truth will set you free.

Maybe he should have taken a few more ethics classes. And maybe a Miss Manners class on losing the arrogance.

B-bye, Sam

Gronke sez: I also agree with Kari that mistakes were made....

A few other mistakes that were made:

In taking responsibility...for the missteps in the firing of those U.S. Attorneys, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales acknowledged that “mistakes were made.”

President Bush spoke those words in his address to the nation early [in 2007] to explain why a new strategy on Iraq was needed. “Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me,” he said....

After the blunder in which the U.S. mistakenly bombed China’s Embassy in Belgrade in 1999, Bill Clinton said: “A series of very bad mistakes were made, and a tragic accident occurred.”

The first presidential use of the phrase over the last 25 years can be attributed to Ronald Reagan. In his State of the Union speech in 1987, admitted to missteps in the Iran-Contra Scandal, President Reagan told the nation: “We did not achieve what we wished, and serious mistakes were made in trying to do so.”

Asked to explain earlier U.S. support for Iraq’s Saddam Hussein during his war with Iran, Mr. Bush the elder said: “So, if there was a mistake made, in trying to move them along a more civilized path by having contacts as we did, fine.”

I hope the linked URL works, but if not, well, mistakes were made.

Oh my goodness we're back to Clinton again. What is with these wackos who can't let go of Clinton hate?

US military actions in Yugoslavia have been recognized as saving 10's of thousands if not 100's of thousands of lives. As far as Iraq is concerned the embargo which ultimately led to the starvation of an undetermined number of people, including children, were policies determined by the United Nations. On top of that the only reason that people died was because Saddam very purposefully allowed them to.

So nice try Harry, but no score on yet another tired repeat of Clinton accusations.

Parker sez: "Forgive the sinner, but not the sin."

Gawd do I detest this line. This is the hypocritical bullshit that has been foisted upon us by the Christofascists for the last 30 years. Accept Jaysus and all is forgiven...until the next time, then you have to do it over again. And again. And Again. The pseudo-Christians ADORE "sinners", because "sinners" just provide endless opportunities for the pseudo-Christians to prove how understanding and forgiving they are.

There's another spiritual tradition, one that motivates me, that likes to talk about "cultivating compassion for all living beings". As I sat with this thought early this morning, Adams came to mind, and I found myself hoping he'd take a short vacation and seek some clarity...then come back home and tender his resignation. Because ultimately, the mess that Adams finds himself in is not about Sam Adams. It's about the collective good of the City of Portland. And I just cannot see how that collective good can possibly be served by having Sam Adams try to hang onto his job.

Many people seem inclined to rush to judgment. This is based on an emotional response, rather than a reasoned one. I'm not sure a reasoned response is possible this quickly. If what Sam Adams did was not a crime to start with, and he didn't lie under oath, shouldn't he be allowed some period of time to let the dust settle?

This issue is not about sex.

This is about Sam's abuse of power, violation of public trust, and election manipulation. We feel that these are ingrained characteristics in this individual and that he is not fit to represent us.

For those that agree please visit:

www.recallsamadams.com

Faolan--actually, Kershner forgot Clinton's other crimes, such as his drug dealing, the murder of Vincent Foster, etc. Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh tried to bring these REAL CRIMES to light for years, but were stymied by the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy.

A virtuous person would resign voluntarily for winning an election under false pretenses, regardless of the misdemeanor.

S.A. should resign with dignity, check himself into Prevaricators Anonymous, and work in the private sector for a few years. He could and should retain his dedication to civic and public service. In a few years, he can, should and would return to PDX government with renewed energy, and I suspect a reservoir of goodwill and understanding.

The problem with the recent apology is that S.A. does not allow for atonement. He wants us to forgive and move on on his terms. Genuine apologies (defined by apology scholars) require remorse and a willingness to accept a punishment beyond shame.

Regarding thirteenburn's comment(s) above: I know this site intentionally promotes the widest possible tolerance of discussion points, but doesn't this cross the line? Is it really the best strategy simply to ignore it? Even a minimum amount of moderation would remove that vileness, I would think.

I'd be curious to know what percentage of Portland voters continued to support Bill Clinton during his impeachment battle over lying to a grand jury about lying about sexual relations with Lewinsky (and to the public.) As I recall, an overwhelming majority of Portlanders supported Clinton's remaining in office and opposed impeachment.

If Sam is telling the truth about this whole matter, what reason do we have, as Portland voters, to hold him to a higher standard than the standard we held for Clinton? Clinton left office with a 66% approval rating. Sam should stick to it and weather this storm. What Clinton did was actually worse than what Sam has done in terms of lying, and Portlanders, along with the rest of the nation, gave Clinton a pass.

my position, in the interest of consistency and fairness, is the same one i held w/ bill clinton which was: people's sex lives are off-limits, provided it involves consenting adults, and as such lying about something that is off-limits, while not what i would choose, is not out-of-bounds. of course it's squicky that we draw a line right at a person's 18th birthday and say NOW you are an adult capable of informed consent, whereas yesterday you weren't. but it's the system we have, so there it is.

so, in that regard, i wouldn't advocate resignation.

that said, i'm a big believer in the "half plus seven" rule of age difference in relationships (person A shouldn't get involved with person B if person B's age is less than or equal to half of person A's age + 7). it's truly a great rule for life, and yes i broke it a few times myself (being on the too young end) but now that i am older i see the wisdom of it.

and sam adams is completely full of FAIL when it comes to the 1/2 + 7 rule, which i honestly think is a pretty important one when it comes to determining a person's character and judgment.

so, for that reason, i don't know that i'd vote for him, unless he did such a stellar job as mayor that all his other decisions indicated that he really has what it takes, character and judgment-wise, to be a good leader for portland.

however, i don't live in portland so it is a moot point.

It is not confusing to state that a man who knowingly slandered another man, when the other man was baring the truth out loud, should be tossed out of office.

What's good for Larry Craig is good for Sam Adams.

What's good for Larry Craig is good for Sam Adams.

There are many things wrong with that comparison, but most ironically, Larry Craig ultimately did NOT resign, and served out the remainder of his term.

...it's hard not to separate the deceptions from self-interested political ambition.

That's the gist of it to me. I've always seen Sam as a politician motivated by personal ambition above all else. This current flap sure seems to reinforce my perception. In the most charitable light he was reckless with other people's lives when he lied, coached others to lie, and used political allies to cover for him, all to advance his political career.

...he broke no laws.

The A.G.'s investigation has only just begun, so that's a premature statement.

That said, it's also premature to call for his resignation, though it sure doesn't look good in terms of his ability to lead.

faolan said, "US military actions in Yugoslavia have been recognized as saving 10's of thousands if not 100's of thousands of lives. As far as Iraq is concerned the embargo which ultimately led to the starvation of an undetermined number of people, including children, were policies determined by the United Nations. On top of that the only reason that people died was because Saddam very purposefully allowed them to."

This argument, based on right-wing propaganda, has been debunked many times, even on BO, so you must be a newbie.

First of all, being the primary power on the Security Council, the U.S., had it wanted, could have prevented the "U.N. sanctions" just as it has prevented sanctions against Israel for the past thirty years. Madelyn Albright never sought to divorce the Clinton Administration from the murder (which was not confined to starvation), proudly stating that, "We think it was worth the price". (It wasn't worth the price, however, to the Iraqis. Nor would it be worth the price to you if your children died as a result of the policies of a nation that invaded yours.)

The sainted Al Gore, who ran on a hawkish platform of Iraqi regime change in the run-up to the 2000 elections, took credit for the killer sanctions and promised to go "further" (Bush-Gore Debate).

And so it was with Yugoslavia. The slaughter there increased after Clinton's attack, which has been classified as a war crime by many analysts. U.S. policy makers were well aware of the consequences of their vicious attacks on civilian infrastructure, including an increase in violence by Milosevic. They bombed defenseless people. They killed thousands directly by violence and tens of thousands more indirectly.

I think that if you'll revisit the history of "humanitarian intervention", you'll discover that nation states always call their militarism "humanitarian intervention". By this logic, Bush's and Clinton's attacks were caused merely by their desire to expand democracy and human rights, but their victims will dissent.

I recommend that you read at least some history and analysis from a point of view to the left of Obama's mentor, Joe Lieberman. The Germans also told their people that they were fighting wars of liberation against terrorists.

You should be aware that tens of millions throughout the world, including the people we have savaged in Iraq and Yugoslavia, know the truth. They hate us not because "they hate our freedoms", but because of what we have done to them.

When you ask whether a certain action is or is not a case of humanitarian intervention, you should at least approach it with a sense of history and an understanding of what’s happened in the past. Then you have to evaluate the case on its own terms. You have to ask, for example, whether the bombing of Yugoslavia was a case of humanitarian intervention.

When you ask that question, in this case, I think you find quite the opposite. The bombing was undertaken with the expectation that it would lead to a very sharp escalation of atrocities and had nothing to do with humanitarian goals. The opposite is very passionately claimed, but with no credible evidence or argument, to my knowledge. (Noam Chomsky, Liberating the Mind from Orthodoxies)

1) Adams is a guy who has been talking about "transparency" and "accountability" all along, but he has systematically worked to avoid that, both in the mayoral elections and, possibly, in the gas tax initiatives, airport expansion, aerial tram, etc. In each case we are asked to believe that Sam was all about "transparency." Was he really, or is this just Sam's modus operandi?

2) This is more than sex and more than the line between 17 and 18. According to Sam himself, he was interested in Breedlove and "flattered" by his attention, even when he knew he was 17. With that in mind, Sam exchanged a barrage of phone calls and text messages with the 17 year old, leading up to a trip to Salem to attend the soon-to-be-18-year-old's birthday party, with an admitted sexual interest. Sorry, but that crosses the line into Pervertsville.

Look, those of us who have kids or know people who have suffered from sexual predators, even the 40-something on 18-type that is technically legal, know how much damage this can cause. We all accept that we need to love our young adults and try to prepare them as much as possible for lechers and users who are within the bounds of the laws, but are really scum bags. That's life. We don't have to accept that one of those scum bag lechers is the mayor of our city.

Harry, having just returned from Bosnia, I doubt that many of them would agree with your characterization of Clinton as a war criminal. He helped stop a genocide. The war criminals were on the other side. I should know - I helped apprehend them.

I'm not a regular here, just browsing the comments. But I have been watching and reading about this with a lot of interest. The sheer amount of conversation on this subject has been encouraging, to me. Apathy is always worse than dissent. And people are clearly participating in these conversations in large numbers. And that's good.

Now for what I think. I think anyone really paying attention during the election realized what kind of politician Sam Adams is. He's the brilliant and visionary but complicated and sneaky kind, not unlike Bill Clinton.

And I think that when these types come along, people who support them make a kind of contract - I'll vote for you, because you're obviously supremely talented and want to enact the kind of policies I support, but keep your obvious hubris and flexible personal morality in check, please. Don't give the opposition a reason to vilify you in the court of public opinion and diminish our cause.

And sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. And when they don't their supporters are put in a bind. Do you support your candidate in the face of scandal to protect your cause, even though you might privately think what they did was distasteful or wrong? Or is their personal behavior less important than the agenda you share with them? At what if any point do you draw the line? Or maybe you don't think there was any line crossed?

Adams sexual adventures aren’t without precedent by politicians (and all kinds of other people) and usually tolerated. Many people think they should remain totally private and I happen to agree. As long as they are legal and on that point in this situation I'm convinced we'll never know. It was close for sure, the "ick" factor kicks in for a lot of people even if it was legal. That's just the court of public opinion.

Concerning his other moves, the lying, the counter attack against Ball, the coaching by him and Wiener of Breedlove's public denials, the possible awarding of the city job to Ruiz for not pursuing the story, not admitting the truth until confronted, etc. - nothing new there. Worse things have been done in the name of politics.

So I think whether you want Adams to resign or not pretty much isn't a black or white decision. It's about what you're willing to put up with and how far he's strayed from your own point on the personal/ethical/political compass in relation to your desire to see him enact policy. Obviously some people are nonplussed by his actions and want him to stay. Others think he's gone too far. I happen to fall into this camp, although I'm not freaking out about it. He didn't kill anybody. But I don't see how he can be effective and I was never invested in his vision. And lying seems to come a bit too easily to him than I'm comfortable with. But I do understand and respect the position of the keep Sam in office crowd. We'll see.

Harry Kershner is the voice of reason.

"The comparison with Clinton, who committed war crimes in Iraq and Yugoslavia, is sickening. Clinton should have been impeached, convicted and imprisoned for the deaths of over 500,000 children, not for his sexual behavior. Your priorities are disgusting.

Incidentally, Europeans' age of consent is far lower than ours. They look at us as children."

Spot on Ms. Mel.

That and the fact that his effectiveness is seriously compromised, representing Portland, since most other places are not as open minded.

That and the fact that his effectiveness is seriously compromised

If effectiveness is on the table as a consideration, then other things come into play, too.

"Effectiveness" is a political calculation. Nothing wrong with that, it's important for a mayor with good policy positions to be effective.

However, when making political calculations like this, it is also fair to ask who stands to gain if Adams is force to resign? In addition to those who purely see this issue through the lens of the lie, there is a large contingent who sees this through the lens of sex... will an Adams resignation give ammunition and power to the more-prudish among us who will make further unreasonable enquiries into the private lives of individuals seeking public office?

Will "it's none of your business" ever become a valid reply to such personal questions, once the dogged pursuit of Adams private sex life is partially legitimized, at least in the minds of those seeking his resignation based on the sex, not on the lie?

That concerns me a great deal.

Well, he pulled his blog. Keeping in touch was one of his good points. That's compromised effectiveness.

The statement he replaced his calendar with (why can't we go back and look at June, 2007?) says, "Until today, with the exception of Beau, I have not discussed with anyone the true nature of my relationship with him: not with my colleagues, staff, friends or family."

It wasn't a lie, uttered in the pressure of politicing. He was living a lie until someone threatened to blow the whistle.

mlw said, "Harry, having just returned from Bosnia, I doubt that many of them would agree with your characterization of Clinton as a war criminal. He helped stop a genocide. The war criminals were on the other side. I should know - I helped apprehend them."

mlw: You seem to be saying that both sides in a conflict can't be war criminals, i.e., that it has to be one or the other. The truth is that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who terrorized the citizens of Iraq, but we were also terrorists in our attack on Iraq. So it was in Yugoslavia.

I just googled "clinton war crimes in yugoslavia" and got 420,000 hits. The fact that you've been to Bosnia doesn't mean that you're qualified to speak for those who were slaughtered and terrorized by 78 days of massive bombing, including the targeting of civilian infrastructure, an obvious war crime.

Clinton's attack was a violation both of international law and of U.S. law (since Congress did not declare war). (Incidentally, only four Democrats in all of Congress bothered to protest. Barbara Lee. Russ Feingold. Fritz Hollings. Jeff Bingaman. No doubt Earl Bumenauer would have voted, "Present" if he had thought there might be a political advantage to it.)

Cemendur: always good to hear from the King of Gondor. "Voice of reason" is a label I've not seen attached to my name on BO. Let's hope for justice for Sam Adams as well as for our victims in Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Afghanistan (among many).

They look at us as children.

They look at their children as adults, regardless of age. England and the US suffer from Prince Albert's idea of all the advantages that could acrue by actively cultivating the concept of "childhood innocence".

Love your posts, Harry. You are the only poster here that follows the logic without detouring to make an exception for a buddy. It must be painful reading the responses. Thanks for keeping up with it. Most people so inclined don't bother to post here. That's OK. It causes less cognitive dissonance for the readership if they think there's this one odd guy, rather than be forced to confront the 50% of the electorate that they've never heard word one from. Funny how they always know what they're thinking and what's best for them, tho.

No Babylon Shitstem : Thanks a lot. I've assumed that most of the lurkers on this site are majoritarian, centrist progressives, like me.

It's not painful for me to read idiotic personal attacks that miss the point of the message. Freaking out the straights is rather satisfying, in fact.

The elitists who represent the DP here are more enraged by my pointing out that the majority of the population is to the left of them than by anything I might say about their party. Democracy is vanishing, and the "leaders" of both corporate parties like it that way.

If you bring yourself to lie about small stuff, then its easy to lie about big stuff. You get caught with your hand in the cookie jar you stand up and tell the truth. People respect the truth and respect a man who tells the truth. Sam Adams opted to tell a lie. I could never believe him or anything he says again. Time for him to go.....now.