I agree that she seems to have made a calculation that keeping the values she came into Congress with were too inhibitory to growing inside the system, so she moderated. That's laudable if you're her campaign manager or boyfriend, but if you're an activist or even just a random person who shared her values, that sucks. Too many people treat politics like they're the former though. We have no reason to give her credit for dropping her ideals to stay in the race. We should only care about her usefulness to the cause.
Assuming you're speaking about the Uncommitted Movement specifically, she's kind of held them at an arm's length and recognized their right to speak up but has not personally endorsed their perspective. More broadly, she has a spotty record when it comes to the Pro-Palestinian movement and most notably got flak for trying to center the issue of anti-Semitism in the left.
As for her DNC speech, the limitations there were her own personal ambitions and courage. The movement doesn't care about her personal goals, she is a tool to enact good policy like every other politician. If they fail in that regard, they should be discarded.
I honestly don't know if this country is capable of fully correcting the history of white supremacy and overall racism. It's built into the very structures of the country, the very bones. The wood beams are so waterlogged and rotted that I'm not sure this is a reno job, I think it might be a total rebuild. In general I promote people getting engaged with the electoral system, but I also believe too many people have an over-reliance on elections as the sole vehicle for enacting political change, when in reality it's just one tool amongst many. There used to be many non-electoral political institutions like the church and unions that delivered direct results to people's lives, but Reagan and his neoliberal children eviscerated the very idea of the common good, so we're fighting in the dark.
But within the scope of electoralism, I don't even have a problem with leading with the issues you laid out, but when you get to the issue of the active genocide - which you must because it's a highly salient issue - you can't have some mealy-mouth position. AOC mentioned a bunch of other issues before getting to Gaza, and I was fine with the speech until that point.
Let me be clear, I'm not advocating primarying AOC. She's one of the best members of Congress. Which tells you something about the ideological strictures of electoral politics. She has just failed to take a serious progressive stance on this issue. I don't think she's a turncoat heretic who should be ostracized from the Progressive movement, I want her to feel the pressure to adopt a better stance on this issue.
I've donated thousands of dollars to various local and national progressive campaigns, spent many hours phone-banking, door-knocking, contributing time and labor to grassroots progressive organizations. I've been to marches, protests, donated to bail funds and mutual aids. I've already donated 4 figures to the Harris campaign and will most likely be spending hours volunteering in their GOTV efforts.
I truly appreciate your post. You brought up many good, well reasoned and thoughtful rebuttals to my arguments. I think we're in more agreement than disagreement.