Hey, I thought her main qualification was supposedly her "experience":

In the abstract, Hillary is a captivating idea. The first woman to run for president, she is the living reminder of the better economic times and international peace of the Clinton administration. But, up close and personal, she is far less attractive. As the rest of the country is exposed to the former first lady, if they emulate the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire and revise their opinion of her, the results will not please the Clinton camp.

What is Hillary doing wrong and what is Obama doing right?

Dick Morris goes on to detail the various miscues and mis-steps in Hillary's primary state campaign ads.

The conclusion is obvious: neither Hillary nor her staff know how to campaign. After the Clinton re-election in 1996, they have never been tested in a competitive race. When Giuliani dropped out of the New York State Senate race and the young Congressman Rick Lazio had to enter at the last minute to try to stop Hillary’s bid, the conclusion was pre-ordained. Hillary’s re-election was a cakewalk against a totally under funded opponent. She doesn’t know how to win.

Hillary’s experience has been limited to the insider back biting of Washington where she is an expert at using her secret police — a small army of private detectives — to unearth negatives about her or Bill’s opponents. (Even former U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young recently admitted that Hillary ran the effort to discredit women who might come forward and accuse Clinton of misconduct.) But, when it comes to campaigning, advertising and winning an election, these folks and this candidate don’t have a clue.

I don't dislike Hillary as a person, but I can't help but notice that the action most responsible for her prominence today was her decision to act as a positive character witness for her husband in wake of the Gennifer Flowers affair. Aside from her initial decision to marry him, nothing else, not even her bid for New York (where she has said and done almost nothing in the Senate), was quite as crucial to her prominence today.

Mitt Romney? A successful entrepreneur and a popular governor. John Edwards made himself rich with his lawyering talents. Obama orates in a way which some find inspiring. Bush was also a popular governor. Ron Paul has a long record of small-government votes. Dennis Kuncinich also has a long record of standing up for issues supported by his constituents. And Rudy was a popular and successful New York mayor who helped revitalize the city. I'm not necessarily in favor of all (or even any) of these candidates, but at least they have some sort of qualification for their prominence.

Hillary, on the other hand ... married and supported Bill.

There's nothing wrong with (and indeed, many things noble about) being a loyal wife, but that alone doesn't qualify you for the job as "leader of the free world." Maggie Thatcher was a loyal wife, too, but that was almost irrelevant to her public political credentials.