A President has much more flexibility than a member of Congress
in regards to the issue of "pragmatism" and "ideology."
A President having much more power has greater influence in shaping the debate and issues of the day.
Just taking the power of the Veto in to account, requires a super-majority to overcome the President's aspirations and stated goals so a President is more likely to obtain a final product closer to the President's ideological bent.
A Congressperson with more limited power is more constrained in cutting deals sometimes voting for bills with content he or she both opposes and supports for the greater good.
The crime bill that President Clinton promoted and Hillary supported was based on the ideology that our nation needed to get "tougher on crime" Bernie argued vehemently, against this approach, instead pushing for education and jobs as the best way to tackle crime versus more prisons and incarceration but voted for the bill anyway because of the positive aspects contained in the bill such as the Violence Against Women Act.
In this case Bernie allowed his pragmatism to overrule his ideology but Hillary had no such compunction, she and Bill were all for it in total.
In the case of the Wall Street bailout and the auto bailout, a President Sanders wouldn't be so compelled to support or reject the entirety having a greater inherent ability to influence separation the two.
Bernie did support the auto bailout but voted against the Wall Street bailout because it never addressed the fundamental flaws which precipitated it in the first place and never held the most egregious culprits accountable, today three of the four biggest banks are larger than they were before the crisis and we're just biding time for a like crisis to happen again.
Indeed Hillary's ideology of regime change and being quick to support war has contributed to the U.S. auto crisis.
While the "Big Three" U.S. market share declined from 70% in 1998 to 53% in 2008, global volume increased particularly in Asia and Europe.[63] The U.S. auto industry was profitable in every year since 1955, except those years following U.S. recessions and involvement in wars. U.S. auto industry profits suffered from 1971-73 during the Vietnam War, during the recession in the late 1970s which impacted auto industry profits from 1981–83, during and after the Gulf War when industry profits declined from 1991–93, and during the Iraq War from 2001–03 and 2006-09. During these periods the companies incurred much legacy debt.[64]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_crisis_of_2008%E2%80%9310
So comparing the Executive with the Legislature in terms of pragmatism versus ideology is fraught with error.