Your opinions aren't facts, are they?
These opinions are backed up by the facts, as you know.
Common sense. You'll have to take my word on that, for obvious reasons.
I'd ask you to consider that holding multiple political positions may not be a qualification for being POTUS.
Prior relevant experience is something that matters in any high-skill job. There's a reason that Trump is listed by presidential historians as the worst president in our history, and part of it is that he showed up with absolutely no idea what he was doing.
BTW, didn't she turn out to be an campaign crook and a deadbeat?
No.
I don't think you have any basis for making the claim that a DEMOCRAT primary is less bigoted than any other party's primary, do you?
Yes, I have very strong reason for doing so. Democratic primary voters have an actual track record of selecting women over men (both times Clinton got more popular votes), racial minorities over whites (Obama ), and even outside those examples have had multiple runs by various members of minority groups who were at least somewhat competitive (e.g., Jesse Jackson, Bernie Sanders). On the Republican side, by comparison, not only has every single winner ever been a white, male, Christian, but so have all the runners-up, and, as far as I can recall, all the third-stringers, too. Take 2016 as an example. The top four spots were all taken by white male Christians. The top-performing candidate who didn't meet that description got 0.3% of the delegates.
If it were just one primary, we could write that off as a meaningless coincidence. But 2012 was the same way. 2008, too. And 2000. And 1996. And 1992. And so on. Women and minorities in Republican presidential nomination races tend to wind up with support approximating a rounding error, like Herman Cain or Michele Bachman. That's not a coincidence. It's because a huge portion of the Republican electorate consists of bigots who won't even consider a candidate that isn't a white, male Christian.