So wait, he's no Corbyn because Corbyn didn't care about "antisemitism" (a ridiculous claim when it revolves around a semite Imam making some claim about semite jewish people, in particular, zionists, who have been conducting an extermination of semite muslims).
The Atlantic is a solid medium, but I had to stop after reading that opening paragraph and just point out the hypocrisy.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Semite
ok, back to the article...
This appears more political than ideological and if the shoes were flipped, both would probably do the same as each other.
This falls more on an awareness of the politically suicidal effect of words. Sanders is more measured in his criticism of Israel's government and the violent displacement of non-Jewish people. Corbyn, on the other hand, doesn't hold back. This is more political than ideological, again.
Wait, that's it? That's the end of the article? So the only difference is that one guy hates zionists and wants to push for human rights more aggressively than the other?
Ok, so article aside, the problem that Sanders will face in leadership will be the same as the problem that Corbyn faced: no one who means anything will work with him. Sanders will have AOC, Omar, and Tlaib, but they all suck at anything outside of social media.
Politicians live and die by their ability to draw strength in numbers. The numbers that mean the most are political peers. Bernie doesn't really have that.