Hillary Clinton has come out against Senator Sanders's plan for universal public college, paid for by taxing Wall Street, the recipients of generous public bailouts. Sander's plan would benefit everyone - rich or poor - like other important (and wildly popular) cornerstone programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Hillary doesn't like that, because it's not means tested.
We knew Teddy Kennedy, and with that perspective, Hillary is no Teddy Kennedy. Kennedy believed in programs that are universally good, because the perception of 'welfare' leads to the politics of race and resentment. Having all people understand what's being done by government for the public good is important, and so is going the distance with our policies.
Take the Affordable Care Act, a very helpful piece yet highly complex and flawed piece of legislation. It has improved upon the existing system, and I'd never go back. Many rich people hate it, because they don't realize the benefits of subsidies; many middle class people who don't earn little enough aren't in love with it. That's one of the reasons we're in the position of defending the law Vs. celebrating it. It also fails to go the distance: working people can't afford its high deductibles, and businesses are stressed by covering all of their employees with overpriced, far from excellent insurance. Take it from someone whose family employees hundreds of manufacturing worker in Michigan - the AA isn't so great.
I don't know whether Hillary prefers means testing or is against Wall Street being taxed. It is clear that she isn't willing to go the distance on policy, which is why Democrats aren't walloping Republicans. The GOP is vile and crazy, but we fail to deliver meaningful change.
Means testing programs with a limited scope won't save the last remnants of our middle class. Hillary is no Teddy Kennedy.