I guess you line up the people who have actually been Presidents, top to bottom, based on experience. Where does Clinton fit in? Probably around the 80%-85% mark. Is that “extreme”? I dunno, maybe for you it isn’t. I’d say “undeniably qualified” is 50%, and she’s way beyond that. But that’s what happens when people get to label their own axes.
I guess it depends on what you mean by being qualified. Does she have a lot of experience? Yes. But when I look at whether or not someone is qualified, I look beyond experience and try to determine from all I know of the person, how good/bad the person would be at being President. I am not seeing what would make her a great President.
Qualifications are one thing, policy choices are another. I rate Bush I very, very high on experience, but I think his policy choices were middling to bad. Nor do I see him as a particularly great President, except in contrast with his son. I don’t think Clinton would have been a great President. But she’d have been competent–maybe not too different than Bush I–and that’s sure seeming like a lot these days.