and he took away the primary talking point that she uses frequently--to minimize and downplay how serious this FBI investigation is.

Blumenthal, too.

The attorney general and FBI wouldn't keep this up without at least the tacit approval of the president or at least his benign neglect.

Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code make it unlawful to send or store classified information on personal email.

President Obama issued this executive order on Dec 29, 2009.

a lot of Wall Street bankers would be in prison and Don Siegelman wouldn't.

stooge?

And he defended mass incarceration, annoying the Obama administration.

And unlike some of the Bush administration hacks, Comey seemed relatively moderate, or at least believed in the Constitution. Finally, as a Republican from the Bush administration, Comey could be quickly approved by the Senate, unlike his other appointees, as I am sure you are aware.

It's like the negotiation process with Obama and the re-pukes starts at the middle and pushes to the right EVERY time.

closing Guantanamo.

It was not for lack of trying on Obama's part. More like a failed promised, not a broken promise. I consider a "broken promise" an intentional act by the person making the promise to go back on that promise. I don't think Obama intended for Guantanamo to stay open all this time.

except the version of health care he got us, a supreme effort and all available at the time, and the TPP.

His court appointments meet with my full approval, and what I find most important about a presidential candidate: that they will make good ones, and that they will get elected to make good ones. Courts decide thousands of matters every day. Congress and the President in these times do nothing, and in good times do a few decisions a year.

That's because he didn't want to engage in political confrontation with republicans. He always compromised our position several times before demanding anything of the other side.

He managed to look very dignified by comparison, but politics has been held hostage by an intractable Congress.

At the bare minimum, Obama could have done a lot more fundraising and voter registration.

I'm impressed with his character, not his accomplishments.

Closing Gitmo was the very first thing he proposed and he was immediately thrown under the bus by senate dems. It is very important to remember that episode as it set the tone for everything that came after, in his first term.

I read his actual proposals, others imbued him with what they wanted him to be.

Obama's biggest legislative effort in his first term was health care.

2008 debate after debate and position paper after position paper.

Hillary's plan: Mandate without any pre-existing coverage exclusion ability of Insurance companies.

Obama's Plan: NO MANDATE, No pre-existing coverage exclusion, and a public option.

Actual plan, a Mandate with no public option. So who is reading wrong as to the lack of relationship between his proposals while running for office and his actions in office. If you allow for having to adopt a mandate, it still leaves the public option cold and not supported by Obama even though it was what he ran on. However, I guess you didnt read that when you read his proposals (right, you read them)

To address the usual comeback as its all he could get. Nancy Pelosi managed to pass a Health care/insurance reform package out of the house with a public option a year before the senate limped into its behind a bill written by Max Bacchus. Obama did not get behind it or even acknowledge the house bill or effort. However, he did say the real bill would be the senate version (which came out a year later) still to be written by Bacchus out of his committee. Bacchus who was a conservative democrat known to be against a public option. So instead of pushing for a passed bill in the senate with a public option which would have kept his promises he pushed for a bill that had not even been written yet although would be written by a guy who would not be expected to support the public option which was the basis of candidate Obama's actual proposals.. ones you say you read (cough cough doubt it greatly).

You claimed that we read into his campaign things that were not there.

He did not run on Romneycare. He ran on a Public Option for health care. A Public Option would be a good thing, We did not get it. He ran against a mandate. Mandated private insurance has been the republican solution not the democratic solution for years. However it is a mixed bag as to who is for and against mandates per se and if you get rid of pre-existing condition exclusions its hard to see a plan doing anything if you dont have a mandate. However, Obama ran directly against mandates as a candidate.

As to plans, no no no no no. Candidate Obama's plan would be much better than what was enacted because it was based on having a Public Option as its main feature. A public option could lead to actual universal health care or single payer if it proves better than private insurance. Democrats believe that it will lead to better and cheaper insurance than private insurance quoting medicaire as evidence. This is why the insurance companies fought so hard against the public option which again was Candidate Obama's Plan. The ACA was not better than Candidate Obama's proposals because it did not contain a public option and he did not put political capital behind the house plan which contained it. You are just wrong and not being truthful when you say you know his proposals when he ran. The person trying to read into his plan something that it wasn't is you.

You are turning it on its face or trying to assert that a mandate (which he ran against) is a good in itself since the ACA reverses candidate Obama's proposed plan to have a mandate without a public option rather than a public option without a mandate.

That is the claim that he did not have the votes. It is true that the congress with Obama's signature passed a bill without a public option. That is not the same thing as not having the votes for something else which is an opinion.

As to whether he fought for the public option, you are totally wrong. The house of representatives (you know what that is I hope) passed (yes actually passed) its version of the ACA with a public option before the Senate even had a bill.

Obama dismissed the house version in favor of a bill that had not been written yet and pointed to the Max Bacchus led committee as the deciding bill he would get behind. At that time, there was no bill written by Bacchus. However, the alternate path would be to support pushing the House Bill through the Senate since it had already passed the house. The fact that he dismissed the House version could certainly indicate that he believed he could not pass it in the Senate. That is possible. However, without question, it indicated that he would not fight for a public option which seems to be your claim that he tried for it.

If he tried for it, he could have pushed the house version and retreated to the Bacchus version if it turned out that he could not get the public option through. He did not try for it.

Its easy to find the house bill if you use google. You can see it was passed way before the senate even had a coherent bill.

As to your other claims, you seem to be all over the map which is the sign of someone who does not know what they are claiming. Your last post seemed to indicate you believed the ACA was better than Candidate Obama's proposal. You seem to now know that the ACA is 180 degrees from the Candidate plan. Its a direct opposite. Are you now abandoning that attempt to make sense of your uncritical trumpeting of Obama. To think its a better plan you have to think that a public option is a bad thing. Now you seem to say he was still fighting for a bad thing.

There are consistent positions to be argued with respect to Obama's efforts in the face of a republican candidate. However, it is just disengenious to posit as your first post did that he did not run as a liberal and progressive both with an overall message of hope and change and with specific liberal policies such as I have detailed here (a public option without mandate). To the extent that this was mere rheteoric it was intended by Obama to have us hope that he really was a liberal who would try for real change in our systems if we elected him in office and people came out by the millions to support such big change. If he didnt mean it, it was extremely cynical and manipulating and not a sign of great character.

*To immediately re-negotiate NAFTA to get protections for American Workers

*To make EFCA (Card Check) the "Law of the Land".

*To label all foods with Country of Origin and whether they contained GMO products

*To Raise the Cap on FICA deductions to protect Social Security

*To "put on his comfortable shoes and walk the line" anywhere strikers are denied the right to organize and collectively bargain

There are others, but these promises he didn't even TRY to keep.
They hit the trash can on Day One and were never mentioned again.

I have the Video if you doubt that Candidate Obama made these promises in 2008, and will be happy to post them if you question my claim.

He tried the best he could with the Congress he had.

so it isn't all congress's fault.

*He NEVER tried to re-negotiate NAFTA. (In fact, there are credible reports that he dispatched his top economic aid to Canada to reassure the PM that he was lying to the Union crowds to get their votes.)

*He NEVER mentioned EFCA after the campaign.

*He NEVER mentioned labeling food after gaining the Oval Office

*Instead of Raising-the-Cap, President Obama put Social Security Cuts "On-the-Table" in budget negotiations with Republicans, forever turning off the deadly power of the 3rd Rail of Politics. Only a Democrat could pull THAT switch.
Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Rep-Conyers-Obama-Demand-by-Jeanine-Molloff-110729-352.html

*He never lifted a finger to help striking workers in Wisconsin

You claim to have read and studied Candidate Obama's proposals, and that somehow I misunderstood him when he made these promises, or created a fantasy in my head. I completely REJECT your premise, and I wish you would elaborate on my misunderstandings some more, because I also read and studied his proposals, and came away with a whole different opinion.

Again, I have VIDEO of Candidate making these promises in 2008 if you wish to see it.
I didn't invent them, or hear something that wasn't there.
I could add to the list about promises of "Transparency", No Mandate with a Public Option (to keep them honest), "protecting WhistelBlowers", and more, but have kept the list short and easy so that you could make focused rebuttals to show me and those reading this thread exactly where I am wrong about Candidate Obama and Campaign 2008.

Please Proceed.

He could have picked whomever he wanted.

Don't even get me started on the idiots that he's appointed to head the DEA.

Obama nominated James Comey to be the new director of the FBI on June 21, 2013. Dems did not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate at that time. All it takes is one Republican Senator to block the nomination when Dems do not have a filibuster-proof majority. To get past a GOP filibuster, Dems needed a supermajority.

Obama had a filibuster-proof supermajority for all of 24 working days early in his first term--and they weren't even consecutive days. He had to pick his battles. I think he chose his priorities wisely. 45,000 Americans were dying each year due to lack of health coverage. He was correct to concentrate his political capital on that fight.

the Bush administration.

If the Democrats are so feckless that they are forced to appoint Republicans to appease a historically obstructionist Congress, then what is the point in voting for them?

The reason that they're in this position is because they have been caving into the Republicans for years, even when the Republicans weren't relevant in Congress.

Bush never had any fucking super-majorities and had Democrats willing to accommodate him on even his most odious appointments and political proposals.

And are you seriously arguing there is no difference between having Obama in the White House and Dubya in the White House? Are you really asking what is the point of voting for a Dem over a Repub?

Trump says he would put Ted Cruz in charge of DOJ. That would make Comey look like Elizabeth Warren.

It's the standard good cop/bad cop game they've been scamming us with for decades.

He hasn't even tried to be as progressive as he campaigned. He is pushing the TPP, do you support the TPP?

Comey is a conservative, but he is the exception not the rule.

The head of the Consumer Protection Bureau is not a conservative. Neither are his two Supreme Court appointments, nor his Secretary of Labor...and on and on.

Tim Geitner, Lawrence Summers, Ben Bernanke, William M. Daley, Jeff Immelt, Dave Cote, Jeb Bush, Robert Gates, Gen Stanley McChrystal, Jacob Lew, Jeremiah Norton, Gen Petraeus, John Brennen, Chuck Hegal, Michael Taylor, James Comey, James R. Clapper, Robert Gates, Leon Panette, Robert Mueller, Michele Leonhart, Lois Lerner, Arnie Duncan , Rahm Emanuel, Penny Pritzker, Michael Froman, Republican Senator Judd Gregg, Kenneth Salazar, Tom Wheeler, Charles Ramsey

His two SCOTUS nominees are moderate at best. And how about his latest nominee? He supports Citizens United.

Your list is not a list of all of Obama's Senate-approved appointees.

If you have a list of progressives I would like to see it. And Sotomayor and Kagan are solidly moderates.

getting the very ill AG to sign off on the wiretapping program.

Two senior White House officials, Andrew Card and Alberto Gonzales, were headed to Ashcroft’s hospital bed, despite the instructions of his wife that there would be no phone calls or visitors. They wanted Ashcroft to sign off on the secret National Security Agency wiretapping program, a program that Ashcroft had already decided to reject before falling ill.

Comey was determined to stop them. “So I hung up the phone,” Comey told the committee, and I “immediately called my chief of staff, told him to get as many of my people as possible to the hospital immediately. I hung up, called [FBI] Director [Robert] Mueller and — with whom I’d been discussing this particular matter and had been a great help to me over that week — and told him what was happening. He said, ‘I’ll meet you at the hospital right now.’ told my security detail that I needed to get to George Washington Hospital immediately. They turned on the emergency equipment and drove very quickly to the hospital. I got out of the car and ran up — literally ran up the stairs with my security detail.”

Federal bureaucracies like the DOJ operate nearly completely independently of the Administration. The FBI is thus operating as an attack dog for the Right Wing, in opposition to Obama. Of course, were Obama to have any kind of authority over the FBI this silly investigation would never have happened, because it is nothing more than a Republican fever dream. But we all know that Obama holds no sway whatsoever over the Justice Department...

Not sure if pundit meant that's where it started, but repugs were looking for a way to get HRC and the email is what they came up with

found out about her private server.

Judicial Watch went on a FOIA fishing expedition. They found that Clinton had not turned over her emails.

During a standard security review before releasing those emails, the DNI's office found classified information. The DNI IG referred it to the FBI.

The Benghazi hearings are commonly thrown out in an attempt to minimize the issue. But it isn't true.

to the Clinton Foundation. That's not a RWNJ gotcha. That's what will probably do her in. She got way to greedy, filled with hubris, played fast and loose with everyone, and likely has some agreement with Obama. It wasn't "convenience" or her "not understanding". Last I heard Pay for Play has consequences.

Obama is between a rock and a hard place, to be sure.

Need anything else???

but he was originally picked by W. Bush for another post in the FBI. Big mistake on Obama's part

But you did forget this part from the article:

Sources have told ABC News that so far the investigation has found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

Like on a Big Mac

Isn't it really just Thousand Island? Ain't nothing special about Thousand Island.

not matter one damn bit.

And this part is very interesting:

investigation, er security inquiry, is over they will mysteriously appear on Hillary's dining room table and all will be well.

Never.

Promoting a candidate with a 64% disapproval rating, who is under investigation by the FBI, and prone to LYING when the truth sounds better!

I've got most of her supporters on my IL--many of whom I used to count among my favorite DUers. I am deeply saddened by this bizarre state of affairs.

SMDH...

surprised. She's going to be tough tough sell in the general. Ugh.

and her unfavorable ranking is now 52%. I apologize for the incorrect percentage I cited -- that's from earlier in this primary.

Hi11ary is a tough sell, at least for those of us who are paying attention. I suspect that much of her "baggage" is dismissed as inconsequential just so that we can have a "woman president."

I still see Senator Sanders in the White House. He stands head and shoulders above the rest.

that. Count on it. It's going to be so ugly, due to the PTB, the DNC, media, etc, all driving this train wreck over an old wooden trestle like the Bridge Over The River Kwai .

that he finds legally and constitutionally deficient. I trust someone who has put duty before loyalty to friends in higher places of power.

sad to see repub ideas replace Democratic ideals and how many here embrace it.

in "new" members posting derisive, provocative garbage -- like they're trying to get you a hide.

SMDH, again...

you put on "ignore" those you disagree with? Sounds very...excluding and limiting, more republican than Progressive.

that I'm a Republican? Or, perhaps, you are being paid by someone to post such garbage on DU? See, two can play that silly game...

I use my IL to filter out verbal bullies, misogynists, rape apologists, sexists, racists and their ilk. I certainly don't have to read the musings of such derisive, hate-mongering individuals.

(Don't bother to reply. As you can probably guess, I've updated my IL.)

must be one hell of a long list. I implied none of those things, but you proved my point none the less, take care and enjoy your bubble.

I post a comment suggesting that a poster is attempting to shut out any debate he/she does not like in a fashion similar to many republicans I know, I then am accused of being a republican plant and then blocked by that poster so he/she does not have to deal with my reply, thus proving my point about not wanting to read anything that bucks that persons opinion. And now you come along and suggest further restrictions on members voicing opinions that you don't like or understand.... The humorous part of all this is that it is a misunderstanding between me and the poster I responded to. But, because that poster is quick with the ignore button there can not be a discussion to clarify our positions or intentions. I originally started reading this site because I wanted to get away from the "he said/she said" tone of our media and read what I though would be reasoned debate about issues. Instead I find a tremendous amount of "he said/she said" noise, and folks unwilling to listen to counter points in a reasoned fashion. But maybe you are right, maybe this is caused by the primaries and after the primaries all reasoned debate will resume...yeah, I will go with that.

Especially when someone went out of her way to say it's not an investigation.

love that word----------------

just like No, Know

It is a "security inquiry" in Hillary Clinton Fantasy Land.

for "If you like your doctor", "Benghazi was caused by a video", "Mitt Romney didn't pay any taxes" and now Ben Rhodes just bragged about manipulating the gullible press to mislead the citizenry about the Iran deal. If those tactics work and they are never called on them, why stop? Like Harry Reid said when questioned about his Romney taxes accusation, "He lost didn't he?" It worked so who cares.

We should only care when politicians lie if they are Republicans. When our side lies we should be cheering them on and denigrating anybody who tries to call them on the lies.

and compromising state secrets.

Unfit for office.

.

was to hook the Blackberry up to a private, uncertified server, and to proceed to conduct all emails, private and official, over that system. She received constructive notice that her communications were unsecure, and proceeded to double-down, breaking a host of federal felony statutes in the process.

So, now, she and her lawyers and staff are under criminal investigation. Nobody should be surprised.

a simple security inquiry implementation

Now she HAS TO call this FBI/email thing what it is: an FBI investigation, one that
she is under, while running for the highest office in the nation.

although appointed by Obama he is a pro-life rightwinger. Do we have to say anymore? Opus Dei maybe?

in·ves·ti·ga·tion
inˌvestəˈɡāSH(ə n/
noun
the action of investigating something or someone; formal or systematic examination or research.
"he is under investigation for receiving illicit funds"
synonyms: examination, inquiry, study, inspection, exploration, consideration, analysis, appraisal; More

Comey and Clinton used different words to describe the FBI's work on the email thing.

same meaning, what's that called again???? Synonyms......

1) The FBI

K&R