“women in Congress outperform their male colleagues because only the most talented, high-achieving women can rise to that level of power in a sexist society” — absolutely true and a great way to put it. Women on the same level as a man tend to be more capable as they had to do more to get there and do even more to stay there since the bars are quite different.

“If progressive men want to walk the walk, they can start by examining their unconscious biases, and asking themselves why it is that every female candidate just doesn’t seem to cut it.” — right here is the issue. Since the ’90s, the percent of men acquiescing to the idea of a female president rose from around 10% to 45% and you’re complaining though it’s a pretty strong change given the scale of the US. Of course, it doesn’t help your case to make generalising statements. For any given men outside the 55% the still don’t adhere to this, there’s either a real politician that is a candidate or at least the idea of what they want to see.

For me, Warren is a real option. For me, Hillary wasn’t — for a simple reason. She had the experience but she simply couldn’t represent the idea of democracy after the DNC debacle. If you claim to be better than your opponent and primaries and hope to prove you’re different enough than your opponent in the finals then killing the democratic process along the way goes to prove the contrary. Man or woman, doing your best to deprive your opponent of a real debate and the ability to stand a democratic process disqualifies you.