It is a matter of judgment

Judgment is critical, particularly in our elected officials.  That is why Ms. Clinton is wholly unqualified for the presidency.

It was her judgment to:

• vilify the women who spoke out about the misdeeds of her husband.
• claim she negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia.
• say Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. 
• say she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia. 
• accept enormous speaking fees from large banks and business, then dismiss the amount as "that's what they offered." 
• deliberately establish a private, nonsecure server for all of her official State Department electronic communications.
• publicly state there was no classified material on her personal server. 
• put national security at risk.
• tell the nation the Benghazi attack was due to an obscure video, while telling her daughter it was due to a terrorist attack. 
• remain in a marriage with a serial philanderer, while claiming to be an advocate for women's rights.
• claim her family and character problems are due to a "vast right wing conspiracy." 
• state, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" about the deaths of four Americans during a congressional hearing. 
• support Anthony Weiner.
• claim to have been named after Sir Edmund Hillary. 
• (reportedly) destroy over 30,000 emails processed on the same computer server as her official communications. 
• state to be "dead broke."
• claim to be just like average folks.
• state she was instrumental in the Irish peace process.
• bark like a dog at a campaign event.
• remove government property from the White House.
• accept and forward as valued information emails from Sidney Blumenthal.
• fail to accept responsibility for her errors and actions.

And the list could be expanded, perhaps exponentially.  

The point to be made is, regardless of political views, regardless of age, regardless of gender, Ms. Clinton continuously exhibits unsatisfactory judgment.  This is a serious character flaw that can not be ignored when considering worthiness for the highest elected  office in the land.

Objectively, one can only conclude her repeated unsatisfactory judgment renders her unqualified for office.