I actually agree with you — the fact that she was nominated was all the qualification she needed to run. The point I was making was that her acts over her career should have disqualified her from being considered for the position.
The rest is semantics. You say I’m confused about “the difference of being qualified and being good”, whereas I take the view that being “good”, at least to the point of not breaking any laws, is an important qualification. No need to reply, I think we are actually on the same page, just quibbling over the meaning of the word.