More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Kristen Breitweiser

Kristen Breitweiser

Posted: March 5, 2010 10:31 AM

Sadness: Barack Obama's Convictions

What's Your Reaction:

A little over a year ago, I was in the Executive Office Building having a meeting with President Obama. The topic of the meeting was Gitmo and prosecuting 9/11 terrorists and the bombers of the USS Cole.

Before the meeting, President Obama "worked the room," shaking hands and briefly saying hello to all. When I shook his hand, I was immediately struck with the fact that he just seemed so nice. Sort of pure. It was, indeed, a deep departure from the feeling I got from the Bush Administration.

Once seated, Obama sat across from me. I could see his legs plainly. What I noticed was that his feet cutely curled around the bottom legs of his chair--like a small child would do in primary school. For obvious reasons, this body language was not what I would have expected from the Commander in Chief of the United States of America.

While questioning President Obama about Gitmo and more specifically prosecuting 9/11 co-conspirators, admittedly, I got a bit "inside baseball" with the facts but I figured as a Constitutional Law professor, Obama would know what I was talking about. Yet, as the meeting progressed and President Obama kept agreeing to everything, I had a small sinking feeling that the President might not really understand the ramifications of what he was so easily assenting to.

But honestly, at the time, I didn't really care. After all, he was the President and he had said it. It was his word. And, most importantly, he had to stick to his word. Right? I shot a nod over to one of his staffers (whom I knew) as if to say, "did ya get that? Did you hear what he just said? Because, I'm holding him to it." I actually smirked. It sort of felt like taking candy from a baby--only this was the President. There really wasn't anything the President didn't or wouldn't agree to.

As I walked away from the meeting, I kept shutting out my cynical, jaded attitude. I wanted to believe. I wanted to have hope that this new President would do the right thing. A new day was dawning. I even wrote a rosy blog about it.

A year later, as I sit and write this updated blog I am mindful that: my home is not near foreclosure; I don't find myself jobless; I have decent--although extremely costly--private health insurance; and I have no loved ones fighting overseas. So, in essence, maybe I shouldn't be complaining.

But I have a little girl named Caroline whose father was killed on 9/11. She will grow up to learn that her mom, an attorney and unwitting activist, fought tirelessly along with many others for a 9/11 Commission and to hold people accountable for the 3000 dead on 9/11. Caroline's also a fourth grader who just learned about the Constitution in her cultural history class.

So this morning when I was making breakfast, and Caroline asked me why I was so upset, I told her the truth. "I found out that President Obama is not going to keep his word. That he is going to ignore the Constitution. And that disappoints me."

My daughter's calm response? "But he can't. Every President has to follow the Constitution. That's their job. The Constitution has to always be followed by everybody. Or at least everybody in America."

When fighting the Bush Administration for accountability related to 9/11, the war in Iraq, and adherence to the Constitution when it came to torture and the Patriot Act, I found that President Bush had deeply held--albeit, inherently flawed-- convictions. Indeed, President Bush and I agreed on very little. But, at the very least, I knew clearly what he stood for and where I stood with him. I can't say the same for President Obama.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 366
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
writersbloc
06:38 AM on 04/12/2010
Crikey people! It's been just over one year.

All presidents have constraints. They have to deal with the opposing party. They have to deal with their own party. They have to deal with institutional limitations on the office. They have to deal with Congress, and the governors, and the media, and the American people, and the incessant hawing of people who are disappointed for campaign promises not delivered according to schedule.

And Ms. Breitweiser I can understand your shock at watching the president agree. But is this not exactly the president that the so-called Obamaites, or Obamazombies elected? Someone who would consider all sides?

Finally, what I don't understand is that you know very well as a scholar of sorts, that the Constitution is largely vague even in the enumerated sections of Article I. Explain to your impressionable child that our Constitution was designed to meet not only the contingencies of the day, but those of a future the Founders knew they could not predict. These same vagaries are what make your profession necessary.

Come to think of it, how is he ignoring the Constitution? By not keeping his promises? That's not in the Constitution. That is politics.
03:01 PM on 03/08/2010
Thank you for having the courage to write this piece. Tragically, your quote, copied, below, applies to so many things Obama - from healthcare, bank reform, gitmo, bringing home the troops and on and on and on.

I have voted in 10 presidential elections and I have never regretted my vote to the extent that I do with Obama. There have been other disappointments, but never so many out and out lies. Obama's leadership failure is just stunning to me.


"I found out that President Obama is not going to keep his word."
photo
HowdyDoody
Freud Woman
02:23 PM on 03/08/2010
This is a very important issue, Kristen, but we don't yet know how it will play out. I do think that Obama plays things very close to the vest, and sometimes I'm sure his deliberate and careful process has frustrated his staff and others. Mayor Bloomberg has not been cooperative in this lately, either.

Bush acted from his "gut," i.e., his own childish ego. He was an inveterate liar whose very 1st cabinet meeting in Feb. of 2001 was about attacking Iraq. He had no loyalty to anyone but himself and his ultra elite and wealthy cohorts. No interest in the environment, people's lives, other countries' opinions of him, the average person's struggles, or the future of the country. He had NO interest in 9/11, other than the pathway it opened for him to go into Iraq.

Obama is not Bush. They aren't even on the same planet.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jcwtts1
Elections have consequences
12:48 PM on 03/08/2010
I've been outraged by the NY hubris for a year now. Bloomberg states that the city of NY can't be the site of the trials as though this is his decision. If NY is scared of terrorists, how long before they are scared of the Russian Mob, or the Latin Kings, or the Bloods and Crips. If you can get a change of venue based on fear, or rather if you don't have the stones to have a federal court in your city or state, give it up. Move it. But he doesn't want that, he wants to pick and choose justice. It is insane and Breitweiser, loss aside, is assisting him by attacking the wrong side in this fight. Attack the mayor.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FreelanceMinion
While the minion enjoyed his brief time in SOuther
10:07 AM on 03/08/2010
I don't want to give ammunition to the crowd who automatically attack Obama, but I am getting to worry that this opinion might be right. I want Obama to stand up and be the President I was hoping for, and I understand he has to do some things I wouldn't like, but he seems too much the late 20th century moderate liberal who is too ready to give in to the right to prove he's not some sort of squishy neo-commie. Dammit man stand up and do something progressive. The GOP are just haters, give us a public option and bank regulation WITHOUT bipartisanship.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mountainweb
Conservative Commonsense
07:34 PM on 03/07/2010
obama is a socialist and not a very good one. He has created the most corrupt administration in US history.
08:17 PM on 03/07/2010
What EXACTLY makes President Obama a "socialist"? He is promoting mandates for all citizens to buy PRIVATE insurance...that's PRIVATE, not PUBLIC. Citizens won't even have an OPTION to purchase "public insurance" because of scare tactics made on people such as yourself. The President continued the Bush administration TARP bailouts for PRIVATE financial institutions (not exactly socialism, except for the financial institutions). A "stimulus bill" is passed which involves 1/3 tax cuts and credits - is that socialism?). The latest, further privatization of NASA. President Obama is not a "socialist", please at least recognize that he is very much a corporate DLC Democrat first. They are promoting free enterprise, outsourcing jobs with lax trade policies, and all other means of "wealth first". This is NOT socialism, if only we could get more socialism at a time when the country really needs it.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
IntelligenceIsBliss
02:33 AM on 03/08/2010
Wow. You must be two years old. Cuz there was this President named George W. Bush who started a war based on lies so his friends could get richer. Tens of thousands died. It was on the TV, you didn't see it?

Oh, and there was this Nixon guy, you might have heard of him. He practically invented corruption.

Crack a book some time, your mind will thank you and you won't come on here and make an idiot of yourself anymore.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mgm512
02:32 PM on 03/08/2010
IntelligenceIsBliss you are fanned. I couldn't have said it any better to mountainweb !. nice post
06:08 PM on 03/07/2010
"There really wasn't anything the President didn't or wouldn't agree to"...............

I voted for the President, and I still support him....largely because there is nowhere else to go.
Unfortunately, the President knows this only too well.

Many people like myself have an inkling of what it feels like to be waterboarded as;
drip, drip, drip,......one after another,........ Obama blithely jettisons poitions boldly stated, and cherished bedrock principles...............in favor of the President's transactional analysis of the politics of the day.....(or even of the hour)

If everything is negotiable, then nothing is sacred

It's telling that Ms. Brieitweiser's fourth grader, Caroline seems to have a clearer understanding of the inaugural oath's promise to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution..." than does Constitutional scholar Obama.
Another promise.........just words?

None of us doubt the President's intelligence, and we'd all like (still) to believe that his heart is in the right place.

It's just that his WORD isn't any good.

TM
08:18 PM on 03/07/2010
You should read the following article. There are options.

http://www.ypa.org/article.php?article=0030
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
colonelgirdle
12:13 AM on 03/09/2010
Well, Obama and his inner circle think I've got nowhere else to go. But I am looking. I gave money to Kucinich during the 2008 primaries and he's looking pretty brave standing-up in Congress for the things I believe in. I don't care who Obama runs against in next time, he won't get my vote again unless he earns it. When both major parties are this much alike, then it doesn't much matter which one wins if I vote third party.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
noaxe397
12:48 PM on 03/07/2010
I have offered this idea for a bumpersticker to the DNC free of charge:

Civilian Courts:119 Military Tribunals: 3

I haven't heard back.

Free of charge.
10:18 AM on 03/07/2010
You people don't get it. The reason Obama doesn't seem like he has any convictions is because his true convictions are Marxist, but all of his revealed agenda is incremental.

http://www.aim.org/aim-report/is-barack-obama-a-marxist-mole/

In private confidence, his real convictions...the rise of the proletariat and the destruction of property rights, no doubt come shining through.
12:34 PM on 03/07/2010
Rubbish, your have no idea what you are talking about, you obviously haven't turned any pages of Marx. First, I doubt anyone would say that Marxists are not strong in their convictions, and second, Obama is definitely not a Marxist. Marxists believe that capitalism cannot be reformed, it can only be transformed into a humane system by eliminating private ownership of the means of production and replacing it with democracy. Obama, time and time again, shows himself to be a reformist liberal, who believes the system works, but those left out just need to be included by educating them etc. Marxists see that as hopelessly naive and paternalistic. Read Capital before you come in here claiming to know about Marxism.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
noaxe397
12:39 PM on 03/07/2010
WTF award of the day.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SweetestTaboo
10:18 AM on 03/07/2010
I am sorry for your loss, but exactly what do you want the President to do? Should he push the Mayor of New York aside and declare marshal law and hold the trial in NY without the consent or cooperation of the hosting city?

Should he find another city willing to host? Would you feel vindicated if the trials were held in say Death Valley, California or maybe Millidgeville, Georgia? Exactly what should he do?
photo
notadumbblonde
IndependentNonHater
11:52 AM on 03/07/2010
I want the presdient to hold military tribunals, which is the right thing to do.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SweetestTaboo
01:11 PM on 03/07/2010
In case you didn't read the article, it was not about what you want. It was about a 9/11 widow who wants Obama to try KSM in criminal court at the scene of his crime.

And just how would you know trying them in a military tribunal is the right thing to do? How many military tribunals have you presided over or even attended that you would have extensive knowledge of what was right and not right. If it was so right, then did you object when the previous administration tried over 300 terrorists in criminal court? I suspect you did not. So, please sit down with your hypocritical ranting. You were for criminal trials before you were against them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lemeritus
Been there, done that, lived to tell
01:16 PM on 03/07/2010
You talk about NYC "hosting" the trial as if it were an Olympic event or World Fair, which in complexity and logistics this trial may be. But you seem to overlook the fact that NYC is also the scene of the crime.

We are a country of laws. But if we start rolling down the shades and deserting our main streets like the frightened citizens in High Noon, we're nothing -- just a bunch of cowards running in TERROR from a band of ragged men with box cutters.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SweetestTaboo
01:53 PM on 03/07/2010
I'm overlooking the fact that NYC is the scene of the crime? I don't think so. That is the very point of the article. The author wants the man responsible for her husband's death returned to the scene of his crime to face trial. I also would prefer that KSM be tried in NYC but I don't live in NYC and would not be inconvenienced for years.

So I think we agree we should stand up to the terrorists and try them in the open like the common criminals that they are. But still what can Obama do, if NY will not agree to host the event?
12:04 AM on 03/07/2010
Wow, all the Obamabots here jumping on this 911 widow. I can only make two points. First, I presume the author is angry that KSM, who committed a crime in the US, is not to be tried in a civilian court under the constitution, but rather under an invented kangaroo court under invented rules of evidence, ignoring the protections enshrined in the fourth, fifth, and eighth amendments. It is exceedingly fair and just of her, who lost her husband in the attack for which KSM is charged, to defend the US constitution for everyone, not just popular defendants. Second, concerning her argument about body language, it may be news to most of you but most Americans are not upper middle class liberals who judge leaders by rationally sitting down and examining his policies. Most Americans are populists with a high school education, who go by their gut feeling about a person. For them, inability to stick to your principles is weakness not to be tolerated. As Bill Clinton has said, Americans will choose a strong amoral president over a weak moral one. What the KSM and Gitmo decisions point to is the worst, a weak amoral president.

"It is impossible for a coward to be moral." Ghandi
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
bascombe
Send the kids off to die, bleed their country dry.
11:55 PM on 03/06/2010
welcome to my world!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Elizabeth de Vries
11:35 PM on 03/06/2010
Subtelty and nuances are right over the top of many people's heads..it has been proven that "fear" strikes the chords and builds the votes of the uneducated or neurotic. In such times as these we need to fortify ourselves and draw on our own inner strength.

Not place it all at the foot of a president who inherited a horrific mess.

We chose him because he was centrist, calm and deliberative...thoughtful and deeply intellectual. the rest of the world appreciates this about him.

Now we criticize him for not being heavy handed and overt.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Pumpsie
02:16 PM on 03/08/2010
Sorry, Elizabeth, but I voted for Obama to be different from George W. Bush, not the same. Obama says most of the right things, on occasion, and then follows the Bush policies to the letter on The Patriot Act, torture, terrorism, Gitmo, wars in the Middle East, the economy, healthcare, and all the rest. The man lied to us. He's either totally corrupt or weak. One or the other. This writer is giving him the benefit of the doubt and calling him "weak." I'm starting to lean towards "totally corrupt," myself, which makes him exactly like any conservative Republican. The most disappointing President in my lifetime, and that includes Truman, btw.
10:23 PM on 03/06/2010
Kristen, what exactly are you talking about? What did the pres agree to? You did not say, so I have no way of assessing why you feel let down.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
bascombe
Send the kids off to die, bleed their country dry.
11:55 PM on 03/06/2010
you can read. start there.
03:08 AM on 03/09/2010
I couldn't figure it out either.
09:18 PM on 03/06/2010
Let's all take a deep breath and simply embrace the long evident truth that Obama indeed is utterly lacking in the "convictions" department.

This has been evident for almost a year now.

Why is this self-apparent fact still "news"?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
bascombe
Send the kids off to die, bleed their country dry.
11:57 PM on 03/06/2010
hw has one conviction: it is that corporate profits matter more than anything else.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
bascombe
Send the kids off to die, bleed their country dry.
12:02 AM on 03/07/2010
hw = he
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:50 PM on 03/08/2010
I think it's still considered "news" because so many people are still in shock. They are just waking up from their denial and they're heartbroken. The hot air they were pumped with by Obama during the campaign cannot be overstated and people are having a hard time with the current deflation.
09:43 PM on 03/08/2010
You know, you're right....

I'm almost done reading Game Change by Halperin and Heilemann and the tough, almost brilliant campaign Obama ran-- both for the Democratic nomination & the general election-- has left so many bewildered by this first year of his administration.

The contrast is a hard one to figure out......
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
colonelgirdle
12:39 AM on 03/09/2010
Yes, still in shock & denial. I got over it relatively quickly but many Obamapologists are still hoping & pleading with B.O. to please show himself. Some of them will simply never realize that he already has. They will continue their hero-worship just like W's hardcore supporters still think he was one of the greatest President or Ronald Reagan's supporters want him on Mount Rushmore. The rest of us need to go on from here and look for genuine liberals with backbones whom we can support and who will support us.