There are two answers from the President last night that merit more discussion. First the President was asked about hos position on a woman's right to choose. I found his answer thoughtful and helpful, with flaws of course:

[ED HENRY, CNN]: Thank you, Mr. President. In a couple of weeks, you're going to be giving the commencement at Notre Dame. And, as you know, this has caused a lot of controversy among Catholics who are opposed to your position on abortion. As a candidate, you vowed that one of the very things you wanted to do was sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which, as you know, would eliminate federal, state and local restrictions on abortion. And at one point in the campaign when asked about abortion and life, you said that it was above -- quote, "above my pay grade."

Now that you've been president for 100 days, obviously, your pay grade is a little higher than when you were a senator. Do you still hope that Congress quickly sends you the Freedom of Choice Act so you can sign it?

OBAMA: You know, the -- my view on -- on abortion, I think, has been very consistent. I think abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue. I think that those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they -- if they suggest -- and I don't want to create straw men here, but I think there are some who suggest that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations. I think, look, this is an issue that people have to wrestle with and families and individual women have to wrestle with.

The reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think women take that -- that position casually. I think that they struggle with these decisions each and every day. And I think they are in a better position to make these decisions ultimately than members of Congress or a president of the United States, in consultation with their families, with their doctors, with their doctors, with their clergy.

So -- so that has been my consistent position. The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is I would like to reduce the number of unwanted presidencies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion, particularly if we can reduce the number of teen pregnancies, which has started to spike up again. And so I've got a task force within the Domestic Policy Council in the West Wing of the White House that is working with groups both in the pro-choice camp and in the pro-life camp, to see if we can arrive at some consensus on that.

Now, the Freedom of Choice Act is not highest legislative priority. I believe that women should have the right to choose. But I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that's -- that's where I'm going to focus.

(Emphasis supplied.) Now there is a lot there that can and probably should anger women and pro-choice groups. The adoption, as the President himself admitted, of Lord Saletan's strawman about immoral women not taking care to avoid unwanted pregnancies (with men apparently an unrelated factor) was offesnive. But the President shoots down his own strawman, stating unequivocally that "[t]he reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think women take that -- that position casually. I think that they struggle with these decisions each and every day. And I think they are in a better position to make these decisions ultimately than members of Congress or a president of the United States . . ." Of course, after my ellipse, the President treats women condescendingly, assuming they need consultation with their doctors or spouses or family. He seems unable to state what is true - it is a woman's decision, not only whether to take a pregnancy to term, but also whether they should consult with ANYBODY about that decision. To be honest, their is more than the touch of the patriarch in the President. He should work hard on checking that impulse.

His proposal to reduce unwanted pregnancies (also known as birth control) is a welcome one for pro-choicers. It is also a Trojan Horse for anti-choicers. They oppose family planning. The obtuse William Saletan has never understood this and makes a fool of himself periodically on the issue. No doubt he has a column today praising Obama for this "new position" for progressives. It is not new, but it is meritorious. It will not bridge the "ideological divide" as Obama says, nor frankly, do I expect he thinks it will. But it is good politics for him.

[Michael Scherer of TIME]: Thank you, Mr. President. During the campaign, you criticized President Bush's use of the state secrets privilege, but U.S. attorneys have continued to argue the Bush position in three cases in court. How exactly does your view of state secrets differ from President Bush's? And do you believe presidents should be able to derail entire lawsuits about warrantless wiretapping or rendition if classified information is involved?

OBAMA: I actually think that the state secret doctrine should be modified. I think right now it's overbroad. But keep in mind what happens, is we come in to office. We're in for a week, and suddenly we've got a court filing that's coming up. And so we don't have the time to effectively think through, what exactly should an overarching reform of that doctrine take? We've got to respond to the immediate case in front of us.

There -- I think it is appropriate to say that there are going to be cases in which national security interests are genuinely at stake and that you can't litigate without revealing covert activities or classified information that would genuinely compromise our safety. But searching for ways to redact, to carve out certain cases, to see what can be done so that a judge in chambers can review information without it being in open court, you know, there should be some additional tools so that it's not such a blunt instrument.

And we're interested in pursuing that. I know that Eric Holder and Greg Craig, my White House counsel, and others are working on that as we speak.

First, Obama's excuses for the adoption of the Bush state secrets doctrine by his Justice Department was pure unadulterated bullspit. It was a bald faced lie. But pols are pols, and do what they do. The more important point is that the President of the United States has now embraced, in essence, the proposed legislation limiting the states secrets doctrine (and also embraced the reasoning in the recent 9th Circuit decision in the Jeppesen Dataplan rendition case that Jeralyn and I have written much about. To that end, the NYTimes writes today:

The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reinstated a civil lawsuit brought against a government contractor by five victims of the extraordinary rendition program, under which foreigners were kidnapped and flown to other countries for interrogation and torture. The panel said the government can ask a judge to decide on a case-by-case basis whether disclosing particular evidence would jeopardize national security. But it recognized the affront to civil liberties and the constitutional separation of powers in the Justice Department’s argument that the executive branch is entitled to have lawsuits shut down whenever an official makes a blanket claim of national security. Michael Hayden, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency did that, quite unconvincingly, in this case.

“According to the government’s theory, the judiciary should effectively cordon off all secret actions from judicial scrutiny, immunizing the C.I.A. and its partners from the demands and limits of the law,” Judge Michael Hawkins said in the opinion. Doing so, Judge Hawkins said, would “perversely encourage the president to classify politically embarrassing information simply to place it beyond the reach of the judicial process.”

Judge Hawkins demolished the government’s underlying proposition that facts known and discussed throughout the world can be treated as state secrets in a United States court. He likened it to upholding a secrecy claim regarding the Pentagon Papers after their publication by this newspaper because the government refused to declassify them. The decision’s overall effect is to trim the state secrets privilege back to proper size. It was meant to be an evidentiary rule that triggers court review of whether disclosing specific documents would jeopardize national security, not a mandate to judges to dismiss entire cases.

The ruling is an opportunity for Attorney General Eric Holder to rethink the administration’s position on the abusive use of the state-secrets privilege. Instead of appealing, and seeking to deny rendition victims the legal process required by justice and treaty obligations, Mr. Holder and the White House should be encouraging Congress to pass the State Secrets Protection Act pending in the Senate. The measure would protect legitimate secrets without undue compromise of people’s rights by establishing uniform rules for handling claims of state secrets, similar to the wise regimen set forth in the new decision.

(Emphasis supplied.) If President Obama is true to his word last night, that is precisely what he will do. A promise made and a promise that should be kept. But, again, actions speak louder than words.

Speaking for me only