Today Sanders AFFIRMED that he said that there should be a primary opponent to Barack Obama.
Oddly, some Hillary supporters claim that he DENIED that he said that there should be a primary opponent to Barack Obama. And so they accuse him of lying. Affirming is denying, up is down, black is white. 
No. No. Look, this is media stuff. What ends up happening -- I do and have done for years a radio show every single Friday, with Thom Hartmann. Somebody asked me years ago, do you think there should be a primary opponent to Barack Obama? And I don't know exactly the words that I said-- I said "Sure, what's wrong with a primary situation?" The idea that I worked against Barack Obama--one second George--the idea that I worked against Barack Obama is categorically false.
= new reply since forum marked as read
You're forgetting that Clinton's re-election was 20 years ago. This would have been the first opportunity for a much younger, much greener, Bernie Sanders to even consider calling for a primary challenger to anybody, and he would have gotten zero attention even if he had. He wasn't running for President and the country wasn't still suffering from the reign of Bush the lesser. If the situation were flipped, and Clinton was President in 2011, Bernie might have considered a primary challenge for Clinton. However, and I'll repeat this for the umpteenth time. Bernie never called for Obama to be primaried. He only said he was looking at the possibility. In 2011. Not 2012. And much of that seemed to come from his concern over Obama's apparent willingness to use Social Security as a bargaining chip, among other issues.
If you jump on a candidate and suggest his actions are based on race or gender, it will at the very least appear that you are trying to undermine his credibility as a liberal/progressive (or, ideally, what people might think of as a "decent human being"
. That was my point. I tried to make it clear that I didn't think that was what you really thought, but that is absolutely the way it reads.
Why isn't Bernie Sanders in your good graces (you specifically, not the entire AA community)? He's done at least as much as any other candidate. He may not be ideal, but you can't really claim he hasn't done anything of value (or at least tried to). Vermont isn't the most racially diverse state, unfortunately, so the lack of visible minority outreach isn't really surprising, but he has been trying, particularly as of late. Why does Hillary Clinton's long standing support of welfare reform and her early support for 3 strikes not seem to count against her? I can understand the position that she has evolved on these issues (3 strikes, anyway), but why does that get a pass and opposing 3 strikes and welfare reform from the start gets a "he has no position with us"? I understand that you were personally attacked, but do you really think that Bernie Sanders' base is nothing but a bunch of knuckle dragging race baiters? Why would Bernie Sanders benefit from having anyone attack the African American community, BLM or otherwise? It would seem rather inept to coordinate such a plan and then fail to warn your minions not to call themselves out as avid Bernie supporters. Still, I imagine you can only take so much abuse in someone's name before you begin to resent the only real face in the crowd. In this case, that face belongs to Bernie Sanders.
Finally, I can't stop people posting in threads, and I can't reply to racial insults if I never see them (I'm not on DU nearly as much as some). I would hope, and though I've been warned many times about the danger of assuming anything, I also assume, that at least someone has your back. It's not hard to imagine that any attack from out of the Internet can feel like an all out assault from whatever mob they claim to represent, and, sadly, it isn't hard to see any messages of support getting lost among the vitriol. No one is letting the bad apples have their way (at least, I would hope not). You are still here, fighting. I'd call that a sort of victory.
So, in the big picture, you are already "on the team", regardless of who you stand with, Hillary, Bernie, or Martin.
“And the little screaming fact that sounds through all history: repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed.”
― John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath
I mean what the fuck do WE know about being a Democrat?... Independents know so much more about how to run a Political Party after all....it just makes perfect sense...who could possibly accept this:
A primary challenge occurs in U.S. politics when an incumbent elected official is challenged in an upcoming primary election by a member of his own political party. Such events, known informally as "being primaried," are noteworthy and not frequent in the United States, as tradition dictates that members of a political party support officeholders of the same party, both for party unity and to minimize the possibility of loss of the seat to an opposing party.
In addition, officeholders are frequently seen as de facto leaders of their political party, eligible to establish policy and administer affairs as they see fit. A primary challenge thus interferes with this "spoil of office," and is largely discouraged.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_challenge
It just boggles ones mind..
You???
Oh and real "Rightward"...
http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm
so compared to Sanders ALL of them are Rightward....JEEBUS!!!
Who IS to the Left of Bernie running for President in say...EVER?
If a sitting president has a primary challenger, it gives that president some practice for debating with Republicans.
I see nothing wrong with an open airing of new ideas. In fact, this used to happen more often than it does now. It's not a personal issue.
I see this as no big deal, but I'm familiar with history. 
Given that Kennedy was instrumental in advancing President Obama, that's decently semi-symmetrical.
The dot joining two strings is from Perl 
and proud of it!
It takes so little to make them happy, why ruin it?
I feel sorry for them, every time they try to distract from the issues they look even more foolish.
Pearl clutching over butts, red baiting, memes like "bankster Bernie", they really have nothing else to cling to.
What is the problem with primary challengers? If the incumbent is strong enough it shouldn't be a problem. But it's become blasphemy to even consider a primary challenger that might represent other voters' positions better than the Democratic incumbent. Again, if the incumbent is strong enough, there should be nothing to fear.
This is so much ado about nothing. But isn't it always?
primaried
Tweet adjective pri·maried \ˈprīˌmerēd, -m(ə rēd\
Definition of PRIMARIED
of a bird
: having primaries —usually used in combination <ten-primaried>
Here is Bernie
treason, punishable by whatever it is we Democrats do?
Sanders mentioning how it could be helpful if someone ran a (foreordained) token challenge is blasphemy. Kennedy causing Carter to scramble like mad earns him a higher spot in our party's pantheon. Hmm ...
Even Governor Cuomo was well served by his primary challenge. He needed that wake up call.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_gubernatorial_election,_2014#Democratic_primary
Progressive minor parties saw an opportunity to make headway in the state due to Cuomo's relatively conservative stances on taxes and spending.[7][8] A poll commissioned by businessman and progressive political activist Bill Samuels in March 2014 indicated that even an unknown left-wing third-party challenger on the Working Families Party line could garner between 6% and 13% of the vote without threatening Cuomo's chances of winning re-election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zephyr_Teachout#2014_New_York_gubernatorial_campaign
2014 New York gubernatorial campaign
Teachout shaking hands with National Writers Union (UAW Local 1981) president Larry Goldbetter at the "We Will Not Go Back" march and rally held on August 23, 2014.
Zephyr Teachout and running mate Tim Wu faced off against incumbent Andrew Cuomo and comedian Randy Credico in the Democratic primary election on September 9, 2014.
During the Working Families Party convention to nominate a candidate for the 2014 gubernatorial election, Teachout lost a nomination bid against incumbent Governor Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo's margin of victory was much closer than expected, especially since the Working Families Party traditionally cross-endorses the Democratic Party candidate.[8]
After losing the Working Families Party nomination to Cuomo, she announced that she would be running for the Democratic nomination for governor.[9] Her running mate, Lieutenant Governor candidate Tim Wu, is a Columbia University law professor who coined the phrase "net neutrality".[10] [10][11][12] Their campaign raised $800,000, a small amount for New York state politics.[13] As of 4 days before the primary election polls showed their likely voter share at 26%, in line with the predictions of political professionals.[14] She and Wu lost to Cuomo and his running mate, former U.S. Representative Kathy Hochul in the primary on September 9, 2014,[15] but surprised experts and pollsters by capturing over 34% of the vote, with an especially strong showing in upstate New York.
the Opponents, and lies, and dirty tricks, and all that important stuff.
?w=610&h=475
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-1-percents-earnings-could-be-stagnating-at-671000/
Though it does say "Could"...
"All other income groups have now returned to their pre-recession incomes. But that won't provide much comfort for the middle class: the bottom 90 percent made $33,297 in annual income last year, just $20 more than they took home in 2007."
From: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-1-percents-very-good-year/
What could Bernie have been thinking?
