Wow, this is a stupid post.
We're discussing female tech CEOs here (with the discussion starter being "who's worst?"), so obviously it's going to be a comparison between various female tech CEOs to argue which one is worst. Male CEOs can't be compared here because we're talking about females.
Maybe you should leave adult discussions like this to us college-educated folks since this seems to be a hard concept for you.
But since you allege sexism, there's no shortage of shitty male tech CEOs (and male CEOs in general). Stephen Elop is a good example here from recent years. Steve Ballmer of MS is another one. Tim Cook I think is a great example; he's really running Apple into the ground it seems. In the last decade and outside of tech, Home Depot's ex-CEO Bob Nardelli was widely reviled as running that company into the ground.
As for Hillary, yes, she absolutely did do a terrible job, as did the entire Democratic Party. That's why they lost to the second most unpopular candidate in history (she's the most). They stuck a knife in the back of Bernie's campaign (as shown by the leaked emails), and pushed a horribly unpopular and flawed candidate at all costs, and didn't even bother campaigning in a bunch of states they thought were "safe" (e.g. Pennsylvania), and as a result, a bunch of people voted 3rd-party and a bunch more just sat at home (see the turnout numbers in comparison to 2008). They completely failed to learn from recent history: Democratic presidential candidates have lost election after election in the past several decades because they were uncharismatic and unpopular: Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry. They won with Bill Clinton and Obama, and what do those two have in common? They're both highly charismatic. Obama also did a masterful job of campaigning, and he energized the under-30 vote, getting them to turn out in record numbers. It was obvious early on that Hillary just couldn't do that, and had no love from the Millennials, but Bernie did (despite being even older). Even worse, Hillary and her campaign were outright condescending to young people, telling people it was their duty to vote for her because "it's her turn", "I'm with her" (not exactly a message that tells you why the candidate is worth voting for), that you're a sexist if you don't vote for her, etc. It was no surprise that she lost, and ultra-liberal filmmaker Michael Moore even predicted it long before the election. It wasn't bigotry that cost Hillary the election, it was the fact that she was a terrible candidate who reeked of corruption and seemed to be a warmonger, and this just wasn't enough to get people to get up and get out to the polls to vote for her. Meanwhile, a significant part of the country has been left behind by economic changes and they really thought a crappy businessman could actually fix things for them because he spoke their language and told them what they wanted to hear, so he actually had a lot of enthusiasm on his side. No one was enthusiastic about Hillary, except for a few idiotic sycophants like you; the vast majority of people who voted for her did so out of fear of the "worse evil", and historically that strategy has not gone well for Democrats. It works fine for the Republicans because conservative voters will happily go vote for someone just because of a single issue, whether it's gay marriage or guns or abortion or whatever. That doesn't work with liberal voters; they need to be inspired to vote for someone they believe in, because apparently they have higher standards (and of course more idealism). Too bad the DNC is too incompetent and stupid to understand this and back the candidate who actually does inspire people, rather than the corporate whore.