You lost me at the Walmart point. The first one you tried, unsuccessfully, to make. She used the political power she had to advance women and environmental issues, neither of which would have happened if she hadn’t been there. Walmart put her in as a token and she used it to push for women and the environment. No amount of her fighting for unions on that board would have made the slightest difference in outcomes for Walmart, but would have rendered her powerless on the other two issues where she could wield power. She’s a very smart person who understands how the real world works. She got something out of a major corporation that they did not want to give anything, where she could just as easily have gotten nothing. A wise person chooses the battles they can win when they can win them, or progress them. There is no such thing as perfection. They didn’t ask her to run Walmart, they asked her to sit on their board, and she took full advantage of that position to advance two of the most important pillars of the left: women’s rights and the environment. So to answer your own question: yes. She does consistently move progressive ideas forward in a slow and lasting way. For instance, one of the core things she was able to do at Walmart was convince them to build greener buildings that relied more on natural light to cut down on energy use. They were more expensive to build and the board didn’t like it…until they realized that — can you believe it? — over time you save money when you go greener. Google the NYT article about her time as a board member for more details. Maybe, just maybe, reading other sources and doing more in-depth research will help you understand that the premise you were trying to prove wrong is actually true. Lasting progress takes awhile and you take the steps you can whenever you can, you push when pushing will move the needle and you work on creating the right atmosphere when pushing will get you nowhere. This is what Hillary’s entire adult life has been about. Bernie may have been yelling (mostly) the right things for the last 35 years, but he’s not exactly the most nuanced of leaders. If he were, he wouldn’t be making the enormous political errors he’s made over the last couple of weeks: spreading flatly false accusations of Hillary being in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry, his disastrous NY Daily interview, accusing Clinton of not being qualified, etc.