Is she fit to serve?

I have never been a fan of Hillary Clinton.  She is and always will be a Machiavel, but this is not a bad characteristic for someone running for the office of president.  Instead, it is a potential risk if she wins the election, because one can't be sure of what will guide her when in office - save for self interest.

Strong leaders tend to be Machiavels to some degree or another. One has to be enough of a psychopath (no moral judgement here) to sacrifice one group of supporters for a "greater good" - and Hillary has proven herself capable of doing that. But she has a habit of snatching defeat out of the claws of victory, by underrating the power of her opposition. When her husband was president, she couldn't get healthcare reform done.  Like her husband, she was a lightning rod for the opposition's political lightning strikes.  And in the 2008 election cycle, she underrated Barack Obama - to her regret.

She is a very intelligent lady, and is very pragmatic.  Yet, she put her foot in her mouth by agitating for a "no fly zone" in Syria.  ISIS has no air force.  So who does this affect? Russia! Can we afford to antagonize the Russians when we have a common enemy?  Why shouldn't we let the Russians look like the bad guys - even if it means that we sacrifice our rebel friends to keep the Syrian government nominally in power?

Much noise has been made by the GOP about her use of private email servers. But government officials from the GOP have done the same thing.  Given the data security breaches in Federal Government computer systems, it is likely that her private server may have been more secure than the government servers she was expected to use. (It is also possible that her private servers may have been "Honey Pots" designed to feed false information to people spying on her.)  Bernie Sanders is likely right - this is a non issue.

There is something not generally reported in the press - she has a soft, human side that people don't often see on the political trail.  She likely hides it because of the double standard imposed on women - if she is soft, she is weak.  And if she is hard, she still can't be as imposing as a male.  In short, she is not allowed to be herself - no matter how qualified she is for office.

So the big question is:  Is Hillary Clinton qualified to be president?  She hasn't done anything important enough to disqualify herself.  But has she developed enough skills to steer this country?  Or, is she the only logical choice left, given the non-logic coming from the opposition?  Only time will tell....