Sure, a Bernie nomination also would have been historic. You can also argue that Bernie's run was historic. You can also say that Trump's nomination is historic. And obviously electing Hilary would be more historic than nominating her.

When everything is historic, nothing is historic.

I think this is a logical step in the progression of women's rights. I agree that it's a great hurdle that women have surpassed. I'm not taking away from the fact that a woman will likely be nominated by a major party for the office of the President. That's a great thing. I am, however, calling it unhistoric because she was the best choice that the party had to keep their agenda going. If there was a male choice that was a better fit for the Democratic establishment, he would have won the nomination (take a look at the 2008 nomination if you don't believe me). I have no qualms about saying that. In my opinion, this is not a win for women insofar as this was not a woman being nominated in spite of her sex. She was likely nominated not only because she fits the party's ideals, but because she is a woman, and honestly, I don't think that's what women should be aiming for. All things equal, I think Hillary would have been nominated for the exact reason that women get so angry that men have historically always been elected: because she's a woman. I think a lot of women voted for Hillary without even giving her policy a second glance because they felt it was time for a woman to be President. I agree that it is about time, but to elect someone to the highest office in the country without even considering her policy is asinine, and honestly, feels like a step backwards for women to me. Maybe I'm completely wrong and every single woman that voted for Hillary really thought she had the best policy, but somehow I truly doubt that.