The pragmatic reason is that she was most likely to win the primary(Check), most likely to win the general election, and most likely to get some progressive laws passed rather than pushing for sweeping reform that was DOA ion Congress.
Of course, you've spent the last year in denial about incremental change being more likely to pass than sweeping reform... and about the chances of someone campaigning on raising payroll taxes and middle class taxes, no matter what goodies are promised, of ever getting elected.
Being right about ideology and wrong about practical matters is nothing new, however. Clinton jsut has to be careful now that all the left-leaning doesn't hurt her with too many voters.
#38 | Posted by Corky
It's not about incremental change vs sweeping reform. It's about are you a liberal or not. Liberals don't work for bankers, corporations, and frackers.
Of course sanders couldn't get sweeping reform done, but he also wouldn't be selling our futures to corporations. That's what you voted for. That's your "pragmatism." Due to the separation of powers, his change would have been incremental as well, only it would be in a positive direction, instead of incrementally selling us all out to hillary's masters.