In light of the odds stacked against him, Bernie Sanders’ quixotic quest of economic, political and socio-cultural transformation, as proposed in his fight against Hillary Clinton, according to many, is an “impossible dream.” It need not be. Unfortunately for Sanders, however; it is not a fair fight. Objectively, it is not a “mano a mano” between gladiators seeking victory on an equal terrain in the vein of the “Rumble in the Jungle” or the “Thrilla in Manila.” Am I dating myself?

Given a different set of historical and political conditions—conditions that do not ipso facto favor the former first lady as they now do—and if one analyzes the present state of the race, in my view, it is not insane or farfetched to envision Sanders as the victorious Ali. Let me explain.

When the then Senator Barack Obama proclaimed his intent to seek the nomination, few, myself included, perceived his chances as achievable. They weren’t worth a tinker’s dam. Who, except for team Obama, would have imagined such an occurrence: white America electing a first-term Black senator from Illinois, with little or no administrative or foreign service experience, and who, to win, would first have to defeat the wife of a former president and the political financial weaponry she would inherit and had inherited from her husband’s eight years in the oval office? “No way, Jose!”

Obama, the pundits proclaimed, could not defeat the unspoken “candidate” of the party’s political or financial establishment and the elected officials beholding to it. Neither could he, in November of 2008, defeat the candidate of the Republican party. To them, he was “unelectable.” Does the scenario sound familiar? Although not completely analogous, substitute Black for “democratic socialist.”

Undaunted, the Obama team developed and implemented a successful strategy for change, one that is now being “essentially” attempted by Sanders, but with one “huugge” drawback—his hue. Black Americans, such as the 106-year-old woman who recently met with the president, hungered for a president who looked like them. They became Obama’s “shock troops.” It is also true that the political killing fields, then and now, were and are, mined against a non-establishment-sanctioned candidate.

Let’s not lie or kid ourselves. “Bernie’s Battle” is not only against a formidable foe, Clinton, but also against a historically entrenched Democratic Party machinery dreadfully fearful of losing its traditional sources of revenue and the concomitant political debacle on the state and federal levels, as with the victory of Obama’s independent apparatus. In addition, Sanders must contend with a media that supports the status quo and does so not too surreptitiously. Just take an objective look at how headlines and television introductions are framed. They are generally what any good lawyer in a courtroom would object to as “leading the witness.” In this case, the viewers.

There are those who may refuse to accept that the playing field is not level and that it is presently tilted towards the former secretary of state. So be it! However, I am reminded of the adage that I paraphrase: “The most blind is he or she who chooses not to see.”