Despite the laundry list of proposals in her big economic speech Thursday, it is what Hillary Clinton did not say that is most interesting.



She received applause for unleashing the green jobs economy, immigration reform, expanding social security, paid family leave and affordable childcare. This is all great stuff, the result of years of progressive organizing. But what struck me most was what was left on the cutting room floor.



Clinton promised to oppose the job-destroying Trans-Pacific Partnership before and after the election. But she studiously avoided opposing a vote in the December “lame-duck” session, as advocates have encouraged.



She promised to liberate students from debt, offering refinancing as a solution. That is a start. But we also need widespread loan forgiveness, to unshackle a generation that cannot compete without a debt-inducing degree and jumpstart the economy for all of us.



Clinton v Trump on the economy: speeches underscore competing visions Read more

Her call for massive infrastructure investment was marred by the inclusion of an infrastructure bank. Similar proposals in the past have funded such a bank by letting corporations dodge taxes on money they have parked offshore – can she guarantee that won’t happen this time?



Clinton rightly decried Wall Street’s obsession with short-term profits and its war on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But she once again failed to endorse the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, which would reduce financial crashes and end bank gambling with taxpayer money. She said nothing about the revolving door between private industry and government that leaves watchdogs working for the corporations they are suppose to regulate.



She knocked tax-dodging hedge funds. But since these vultures create little of value and profit by leaching money out of productive businesses, why not close the loophole that allowed them to flourish in the first place?



Clinton wants the worst of the 1% to pay their fair share in taxes. But there was not one word about antitrust, even though too-big-to-fail banks and too-big-to-curtail corporations allow elites to hoard wealth.



The dizzying array of tax credits? All good causes, but direct investment might be more effective – and monthly cash grants, along the lines of a universal basic income, more noticeable and popular than benefits disguised in yearly taxes.



Some might say that the specter of a President Trump makes this no moment politically risky proposals. But at best, Trump is imploding. At worst, he is outflanking Clinton on trade. Is this not the time to go bold to reach disaffected voters, and set a new flank that renders these proposals the moderate fallback?



If not now, when?



Add it all up, and it is easy to see how this one candidate could simultaneously be regarded as the most liberal in recent history by her admirers, and almost lose a shoo-in primary to a cranky leftwing iconoclast. Clinton’s words are liberal. Her silence is conservative.



The gap between the two may define the next eight years.