Robinson rightly observes that Democratic primary voters are not yet willing to embrace Hillary as inevitable. After noting the interest in Biden, who has not yet "decided" to enter the race, Robinson writes

As recently as July, according to the RealClearPolitics poll average, she led Sanders nationally by 50 points; now, that lead is down to about 14.

Based on polling data, we will be told, she is still an overwhelming favorite.

But I can remember some commentary 8 years ago, when there were many more candidates opposing the supposedly "inevitable" Clinton -

"A black man cannot win"

"the Clintons have locked up the party regulars"

"Hillary has a superior campaign, with many more experienced professionals" (which of course included Mark Penn running her campaign)

"the desire for a female president gives Clinton an overwhelming advantage in a a Democratic primary dominated by woman"

"Despite Obama being Black, the Clintons have a strong record and thus strong support from the African-American community, particularly among electeds."

Now, while I have used quotes, I am summarizing sentiments that were widely spread. Take the last. In Virginia, Jennifer McClellan, the most prominent African-American female elected official among Democrats, supported Clinton. Civil Rights hero John Lewis of Atlanta supported Clinton. Yet once it became clear that Obama was viable, both found great pressure from constituents to drop their support for her and move to Obama.

There may be no ONE identifiable group that is demonstrating similar support for Sanders, and many who perhaps should step back and use their considerable intelligence to look realistically at what is happening, still insist that (a) Sanders cannot win the primary, and (b) even if he were to be the nominee, he would cost the Democrats the opportunity to keep the White House. They forget how much these arguments parallel the rationalizations offered on CLinton's behalf 8 years ago.

Let me return to Robinson. One paragraph in the midst of this exceedingly good column should help doubters understand what is happening:



I believe his success to date is due to insight and ideology. Sanders was perceptive enough to frame a message that is perfect for the zeitgeist: The system is rigged to benefit the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else. And having identified the problem, he offers clear and internally consistent remedies.

Regardless of the rhetoric she offers, Clinton and the people around her and her husband are tied in the minds of many with the wealthy and Wall Street.

And were one to remind them of some of the facts, it might deepen and broaden Sanders' support.

Consider:

Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin

eliminating Glass Steagall

Chelsea working for a hedge fund

How much money the Clintons have made off of their fame (books, speaking fees)

tone-deaf comments about how broke they were

support of education "reform"

Robinson points us at the positions which Sanders advocates, which he argues are very much in tune with the zeitgeist of American politics right now.

He also reminds us that the Republican front-runner, Donald Trump, has positions that would expand the power of the government (for example on the subject of immigration) as much as the popular economic policies that Sanders propounds.

Of Sanders' policies, Robinson writes

This clarion call arrives at a time when polls show that Americans across the political spectrum are disillusioned by politics, fed up with politicians and worried about the state of the nation.

That worry MAY lead to a greater than otherwise anticipated of such worriers in the political process, including in primaries in key states.

After noting the appeal of Trump's very different ideas about expanding the reach of government, Robinson concludes his column with these words:



I don’t think this is just a coincidence. This cycle’s breakthrough candidates aren’t calling for government to leave us alone. They’re calling for it to do big, bold things.

Robinson may be right.

I think he may not go far enough in his remarks.

Many people had real hopes after the election of Obama. While there were some notable successes, the fierce opposition on political grounds of the other party, starting with the January 20 2009 meeting on how to undermine the administration, helped undercut the level of support that had flowed to Obama. What I consider poor judgment on a number of issues, both by the administration and by Harry Reid in the Senate, further undermined what had been strong support for serious change, which is why so many stayed home in 2010, costing the House, and again in 2014, costing the Senate.

I suggest that the forthcoming election is critical not merely in who wins, but in who participates. That will of course be influenced to some degree by attempts of Republicans to suppress voting by those who will vote Democratic (to wit, consider the recent moves to shut DMV offices in the Black Belt counties of Alabama).

Were Clinton not so tied to traditional approaches to politics and campaigning, and willing to be more bold, she and Sanders could have a fascinating series of discussions/debates in which how far the nation could be moved in a progressive direction was the fundamental upon which those discussions were based.

Sanders is not a perfect candidate, nor is Clinton a fatally flawed one.

But there is something very real happening with his campaign. The press has an obligation to present it fairly.

And as Robinson said in his second sentence:

At this point, anyone who doesn’t take Bernie Sanders seriously must not be paying attention.