My feeling is that no, he will not be able to keep his high approval rating if he continues to fly directly in the face of what his own base wants. I hope he doesn't become so enamored of the idea of pleasing "centrists", or fearing the label "weak", that he continues to pursue a business-as-usual attitude on so many issues.

While there are still apologists for Obama's actions on the left, they are definitely losing ground. The argument excuses the DoJ lawyers for their "state secrets" defense is not winning the day, and certainly the attempt to simultaneously offer this defense while pretending it's not Obama's policy is something that is only leading to guffaws.

One argument that I've seen, which I think you might want to address, Glenn, is that it is the job of attorneys to represent their clients as aggressively as possible, and that the determination as to whether the arguments are constitutional is solely up to the judge who rules on the case. Personally, I don't find this to be a convincing argument. If the DoJ lawyers go in and positively affirm that the moon is made of green cheese, they are ethically responsible for holding that position. I don't think it's reasonable to say that DoJ lawyers are supposed to go to any lengths to protect other government officials, solely because the defendants work for the government.

DoJ lawyers do not only work for the purpose of defending government officials, they also work to defend the people of the US, and to uphold the constitution. They are completely in the wrong if they present arguments that are plainly unconstitutional.

Finally, there is a great deal of disingenuousness among advocates of this notion of sole judicial responsibility. After all, judges are appointed by the executive branch. It is unreasonable to suppose that a sequence of Presidents, each seeking to expand the power of the executive branch, are somehow going to produce a judiciary comprised of their appointees that are somehow going to stand as the vanguard against that kind of power grab. That kind of complete judicial independence, which happened under the Warren Court, is clearly the exception, not the rule.

We cannot trust the notion that a President whose DoJ lawyers embrace expanded notions of state secrecy will somehow appoint judges who will stand against this expansion of power, invasion of privacy, and erosion of civil rights. That's why this fight for civil rights must include demanding that DoJ lawyers not advance arguments of expanded state sovereignty and state secrecy while defending the actions of their predecessors.

Just to be clear - it is possible that the two administrations might have legitimate reasons to try to keep something secret - but the privilege which Bush claimed and the expanded privilege which Obama claims, under which to keep this something secret is utterly wrong and non-existent as per Constitutional law.

That would seem to rely on a tortured definition of "legitimate". Ordinarily, "legitimate" has the concept of "legal" as part of its definition.

This entire notion of the need for secrecy is deeply anti-democratic. Our Constitution and laws were not constructed so as to validate the notion that elected leaders are supposed to keep secrets from the American public. Sadly, the system of "state secrecy" has ballooned to outrageous proportions since the end of WWII.

From my standpoint, the interesting bit in this article is the sentence about how scientists were commenting anonymously because they were not "authorized" to speak to the press.

This is a Bush-era rule, and it's ludicrous. After some embarrassment on the global warming and stem-cell fronts when government scientists would not toe the line, the Bush administration imposed a rule whereby scientists were required to get approval from political appointees before they spoke to the press.

There is no reasonable justification for this rule in a free society. Scientists employed by the government are hired to communicate their results and understanding of current science. It is ludicrous that the need to work under a general gag order.

I would not be surprised to find out Biden did make a smart-ass remark to Bush in private. I would not be surprised if he exaggerated the length of the meeting.

I really wouldn't be surprised at anything, except for the notion that Karl Rove would be considered a defender of the honor of the office of the vice-president.

Somebody remind me please - has Biden's Chief of Staff been convicted of perjury or obstruction of justice?

I wonder how much of these positions stem from a deep-seated unwillingness to do anything other than be as "macho" as possible, lest the President be criticized as "weak".

(And yes, if that's the justification, then it only makes the man look weaker.)

I, for one, am baffled at the notion that kidnapping is fine and dandy, as long as the President says so.