I think you're taking this far too personally here. There is no shade being thrown at Bernie or his supporters.
The conventional wisdom was that Hillary had a strong base of support among white working class voters in the 2008 primary. And, while she did very well with them, it wasn't because they really liked her policies. It was because she was white. That is why she did so well in West Virginia and Oklahoma as opposed to this year. She benefited from being white in 2008, because, as much as we hate to admit it, there are racists in the Democratic party.
In 2016, Bernie benefited from what I would argue is a similar dynamic, but based more on gender than race. (Although, because Hillary did argue that she was a continuation of the Obama presidency, there may have been a small racial component as well.) He also benefited from being "not Hillary," in the same way Obama did in 2008. That's not to say Bernie's voters were racist or sexist. There were some racists and sexists in his coalition, just as there were in Hillary's.
The argument that the article was putting forward was what we were talking about. Hillary didn't have some huge advantage with white working class voters. (Neither would Bernie, to be honest once we get to the general.) A lot of his voters in West Virginia, for example, always intended to vote for Trump. Hillary's 2008 advantage with white, working class voters wasn't entirely based on her platform, just as Bernie's advantage with them in 2016 wasn't entire based on his platform. (Unless, we want to argue that conservative Democrats have suddenly turned into socialists.)
