he certainly was qualified for the job though, but that has little to do with what ends up appealing to the voter.
Actually, that's just your blinders talking. When she got involved in the use of military force, she made the Bush Administration's handling of the occupation of Iraq look like it was being handled by Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great. Do you realize what she did just in Libya that we can confirm?
1. We overthrew a dictator who was complying with international WMD disarmament protocol.
2. We knew in advance that the majority of rebels were Islamists aligned with Al Qaeda.
3. There was precisely no ground game, not even a counter-insurgency strategy for helping a transition regime wipe out undesirable rebel factions that wouldn't submit to the new regime (and that's assuming that we found ourselves in a position where the new regime wasn't worse than the rebels that wouldn't submit!)
4. She knew that there were a ton of MANPADs and other devices suitable for serious and brazen acts of terror that needed to be secured. Did we even get boots on the ground early on to secure them? Nope. She, like most politicians today, thinks you can win a war with air power alone.
#1 alone should have sent blood chilling tingles down the entire foreign policy establishment's spines. The harm she did to WMD disarmament efforts with Libya was incalculable. She assured us of a scenario where even if a substantial faction of Iranian leaders wanted to comply in good faith, they would not be able to bring themselves to do it because the evidence that "compliance means assassination" was right before their eyes under the same administration that was negotiating with them.