Coming back to that interview, here is the paragraph just before:
As she saw it, the party ostensibly committed to progressive values had become complicit in perpetuating the status quo. Omar says the “hope and change” offered by Barack Obama was a mirage. Recalling the “caging of kids” at the U.S.-Mexico border and the “droning of countries around the world” on Obama’s watch, she argues that the Democratic president operated within the same fundamentally broken framework as his Republican successor.
You can argue about whether Obama actually campaigned as a breaker of the existing framework or whether desperate progressives simply projected that on him; but you can’t deny that in office he chose to operate within the current bounds of acceptable policy rather than break them. We believed he meant to end endless war, but instead he doubled down in Afghanistan because the establishment told him he had to. We believed he would stop the callous killing of the war on terror, but instead he expanded, because the establishment told him he had to. We believed he would side with people over banks and corporations, but instead he sided with banks, because the establishment told him he had to. These failures are not like the ACA vs single-payer because, in these areas, he was the decider, not Congress. So she is entirely right in this criticism.