Did you read it?

"Introduced the “Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act,” [details please]which would break up the big banks [through which vehicle? regulatory agencies? executive fiat? legislative requirements? can we at least get a sketch of what the Act would look like and who in Congress would support it?]and prohibit any too-big-to-fail institutions [according to whose definitions? how is a bank labeled "too big to fail" and who does the labeling?]from accessing the Federal Reserve’s discount facilities or using insured deposits for risky activities."

Compare that to Clinton: "give more authority to existing regulators (i.e. the SEC) to force banks to reorganize if necessary." It's not drafting a vague new Act from whole cloth, it's giving more power to an already existing institution. Also, giving more power to the SEC is within executive purview, so it could get done even with a hostile Congress (unlike the Sanders proposal, which has a 0.000005% chance of getting bipartisan support and would require a progressive supermajority to pass).

Even if you disagree with HRC's plan, you at least have an idea of what it is. The "Too Big to Fail Act" would be a massive piece of legislation (probably on par with the ACA) but we get zero information about how exactly it would be intended to work.

I'm okay with progressive policies if you give me actual policies to debate. Even better if those policies have a reasonable chance of becoming reality within the next 10-15 years.