I think Ezra hit the nail on the head when he said that her campaign failed by looking too much through the technocratic lens of having to navigate the nitty gritty of politics and political institutions and of being bound by it. This "incremental realism" was very limiting for her and the long-term vision she was trying to sell.
Also, I still can't really clearly tell where she stands on decentralization of wealth and power. She definitely wants the poor, working class, and middle class to have a better quality of life, but I'm not sure she is willing to go as far as to make the wealthy primarily accountable for this, though they should be as they are pulling the levers that got us into this mess in the first place from a financial perspective. They are stacking the cards against everyone else by relentlessly trying to fix the game through lobbying for laws that give them a massive, incontrovertible advantage to keeping and maintaining their wealth and power indefinitely and beyond that, consolidating it even further.
The system itself needs reforms to close the loopholes that enable the wealthy to do this in the first place. If she too has this stance, I would have liked her to be more forthcoming about it and what she intended to do about it. Because that is the ultimate end game from the perspective of maintaining a high quality of life for the most Americans possible.
I think the reign of the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Buffets, Gates, Jobs, Zuckerbergs, etc. of the world, regardless of how well-intentioned they may be with their philanthropy, must come to an end. The enabling of such accumulation of wealth, influence, and power is incredibly troubling and culturally, most still laud it. People's ideas should be lauded, not their cult of personality. As long as we enable and encourage such uneven distribution of wealth and power, we are doomed to be a divided, manipulated, exploitable nation of individuals.