On the night Sen. Bernie Sanders beat her in the Michigan primary, Hillary Clinton told a rally in Ohio that as president she would stand up to “corporations that seem to have absolutely no loyalty to this country that gave them so much in the first place.”

She then ripped Nabisco for laying off 600 workers in Illinois, “even though they got tax breaks from the state of Illinois. They have no problem taking taxpayer dollars with one hand and giving out pink slips with the other.”

It was a remarkably anticorporatist stance from Clinton, considering that the source of much of her money is corporate. Take the $600,000 in speaking fees investment bank Goldman Sachs has paid her, or the $25 million that one super PAC supporting her raised in the last six months of 2015, $15 million from Wall Street sources.

As Democrats vote Tuesday in the key primary states of Ohio, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina and Missouri, Clinton’s Nabisco-bashing is a sign of how the Democratic race for president is being played in a far more progressive sphere than when she launched her campaign.

Even though Sanders faces a formidable road to capturing the Democratic nomination, his strong challenge to Clinton is not highlighting how the current political system is “rigged,” as he puts it, by the richest Americans; it is pulling her into taking more left-leaning positions. Even though she and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, were the vanguard of a generation of moderate Democrats in the early 1990s, she has rebranded herself in the 2016 campaign as a “progressive who gets things done.”

However, while Clinton may be using more progressive rhetoric on the stump, sometimes her actions don’t match her words.

Clinton will continue to feel progressive pressure from Sanders. No matter what happens Tuesday or how much Clinton leads in the delegate count, Sanders isn’t leaving the campaign trail anytime soon. After taking in $42 million in donations in February — far more than the $30 million Clinton raised — Sanders’ campaign is fueled to run until the Democrats’ July nominating convention in Philadelphia.

During a speech last week after the Michigan primary, Clinton pointed out that she and Sanders “have our differences, but those differences pale compared to what’s happening on the Republican side.”

Here are some places where Sanders’ challenge has shifted the conversation to the left over the past year and some ways where Clinton leans toward more moderate stances:

Campaign financing: Last May, Clinton said she would have a litmus test for appointing Supreme Court justices: They must oppose the Citizens United Supreme Court decision that allows corporations, labor unions and individuals to spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns. Sanders, who has made campaign finance reform a central theme of his campaign and has been talking about it for years, has a similar litmus test.

But while the conversation has shifted, some of Clinton’s actions haven’t. Super PACs — the creation of Citizens United — and other PACs supporting Clinton have raised $57 million through January; Sanders rejects them.

Voters are noticing this dichotomy.

Last week, Ohio Democratic voters told longtime Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg that they didn’t trust Clinton because of her connections to super PACs and Wall Street. One told Greenberg, “I just, honestly, I do not believe her, that she’ll do anything for the reform,” according to David Donnelly, president and CEO of Every Voice, a nonpartisan group that worked with Greenberg on the voter focus groups.

“A better path forward for Clinton to win back lost trust with voters would be to speak honestly and openly about how she understands the system is broken and will fight to change it once she is in office,” Donnelly said.

Trade: Clinton, like her husband, has long supported free trade — notably the North American Free Trade Agreement, the 1994 agreement that organized labor has blamed for the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.

She also made many comments in support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement when she served as secretary of state, calling it “the gold standard.” But she flipped in October, saying she opposed it because “I don’t believe it’s going to meet the high bar I have set.”

Sanders will try to exploit this flip Tuesday in states with solid manufacturing sectors, like Ohio.

“This isn’t a left or right example. Everybody is upset about this, and she’s definitely gotten that,” said Jim Dean, chairman of Democracy for America, whose members endorsed Sanders. “But it’s not something that would have have come out if she hadn’t had the primary challenge for the caliber of Sen. Sanders.”

The environment: Both Clinton and Sanders embrace taking on the sources of climate change. Clinton was a latecomer to opposing the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline that President Obama canceled. Clinton did not want to take a position on it while the State Department was reviewing the proposal during her tenure and later under her successor as secretary of state, John Kerry.

Sanders has long opposed it. They both say they oppose fracking, but last week Clinton gave herself a path to take a more moderate position for the general election.

“I don’t support it when any locality or any state is against it, No. 1,” Clinton said at last week’s Michigan debate. “I don’t support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I don’t support it, No. 3, unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using.”

Sanders response: “My answer is a lot shorter. No, I do not support fracking.”

College tuition debt: Sanders has made free college tuition at public universities a centerpiece of his campaign. It is one reason 80 percent of young voters have been supporting Sanders.

Clinton has countered with a more complicated plan that aims at ensuring that students graduate from college debt-free. It also refines the idea so that it is fiscally progressive, giving more assistance to poor students while ensuring that “Donald Trump’s kids,” to borrow Clinton’s phrase, don’t get the same level of assistance.

It’s another way that Sanders has “without a doubt” made Clinton a better candidate, said Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Los Angeles. The fourth-highest-ranking Democrat in the House, Becerra is a Clinton supporter and member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, most of which supports Clinton.

“You can’t prepare for a debate when Bernie Sanders comes at you at light speed on things he’s been saying for three decades — but all of a sudden it is gaining resonance around the country,” Becerra said. “I knew she was going to do very well when she said, ‘I’m a progressive who gets things done.’ That’s me, too.”

Joe Garofoli is The San Francisco Chronicle’s senior political writer. Email: jgarofoli@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @joegarofoli