I think what's annoying about the thing Ash shared is that it sees privilege/oppression/whatever you want to call it as linear. One person must be more or less oppressed than the other, like you can simply do the math and solve the equation. But the whole POINT of that kind of analysis, at least as far as I've always understood it, is that these forms of power and privilege are variable. There can be one situation where the white woman has it worse, another where the black man has it worse. You don't even need to get into weird hypothetical situations to demonstrate this-- black men legally got the right to vote before any women did, while also facing Jim Crow etc.
I also think there's something to the idea that some of the things people don't like about HRC are things she has done due to the pressures of being a female politician. Men can get away with seeming more angry and disheveled, people would judge HRC if she just showed up in baggy-ass suits like Bernie, etc. Maybe that also explains her hawkish foreign policy, having a history of being "tough on crime," other things that she has done to seem powerful and not "girly".
But IMO, there's a difference between understanding why someone has turned out a certain way, and supporting it. Some people are not-great because of the pressures of our fucked up society... but other people survive those pressures in other ways. I know far too many strong, intelligent women to believe that HRC is the best a woman can do, that all of her flaws are the inevitable result of surviving decades as a woman in politics. I know that if I had to pick someone I know personally to be president it would almost certainly be a woman... maybe guys in my generation just suck. That said, HRC is clearly going to be the next president. And I'll vote for her 100 times before I see Trump in the White House.