Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Apart from that, most of the "uncompromising left"s objections to Hillary were not objections to her policies. They were objections to her history, her character and her apparent allegiances.
One objection, for example, was that she gave very highly paid speeches to Wall St. This seemed to imply that she was serving Wall St first, and not the ordinary Joe on Main St. She could have helped assuage these concerns by releasing the transcripts of the speeches, but she refused, thus strengthening the impression that she had something to hide. A related objection was that she used to be on the board of Walmart during their most notorious union busting days. And another was that she had long partnered with big fracking and the prison industrial complex.
A further objection was that she had systematically defended, over decades, an alleged (and let's face it, probable) serial sexual predator, a man plausibly accused not just of sexual assault, but of rape. Electing her would put the aforementioned individual back on his old stomping ground, but with a bit more free time.
Another concern was that she had some pretty disreputable associations. Her former business partners were sent to jail for crimes committed even while they were still partners with Hillary. Her husband had been impeached and struck from the bar for perjury and obstruction of justice. She claimed among her mentors men who were pariahs on the left, including alleged war criminals and former Klansmen. She was under investigation by the FBI, and was ultimately found to have been "extremely careless" with national security.
And, lastly, the Democrats were found to have, um... "leaned on the scales" a little to get her through the primaries. This sure didn't do her any favors among progressives who felt they had been swindled.
None of these are disputes over policy. They are objections to the history, character and suitability of the candidate. You can complain about the progressives being inflexible purists over left-wing policy, but there is no policy-compromise here for the progressives to make.
Believe it or not, this is not yet another attempt to bash Hillary. That would be a pointless waste of time. What matters, here, is that the Democrats had better figure out what actually happened in 2016 if they're not to repeat it. And to do that, they had better stop peddling half-truths and myths designed, not to get at the truth, but to excuse Hillary Clinton. Those myths had a purpose in 2016, when defending Clinton was part of what was needed to keep Trump out. But now they just get in the way of an honest and informative analysis, which makes them a liability.