Hillary the Strongest Candidate for the General?

I've been hearing Hillary for last year repeatedly talk about how she would be the strongest candidate for the general election.  How can anyone take this seriously?

Hillary says she's been "tested".  She's been "vetted", basically she's battle proof.  

But she came in to this race with some of the biggest advantages in the book.   Most of the party apparatus has connections with her and Bill, many having worked on Bill's campaign or even in his administration and Clinton has, in many cases, used those connections to gain endorsments and in some cases, feet on the ground.    

Her husband, at least at the beginning of this campaign, was fondly remembered by most Americans, and nearly universally liked by Democrats.

Her husband, when he was president, set the standard for Democratic fundraising, breaking several records.  And in this campaign, she has had him fundraising for her, in addition to the fundraising she herself was able to do.  How vast of a fundraising network can you cultivate during eight years running the free world?  One certainly would expect a bigger one than you could assemble during 2 years as a US Senator and eight years in the Illinois State Senate.    

So she came into this race with some tremendous advantages.    And she is the "fighter" who can win this election, and beat the Republicans.  

And yet it is she who is getting beat.   Once the election began, her campaign came about as close to collapsing as you can get before barely staying alive.  After a struggle to barely pull ahead in Nevada, Clinton's campaign appears on the brink of collapse again, after she came out of Super Tuesday with what now looks like a narrow loss, and with a campaign that, notwithstanding the former fundraiser in chief on its side raising bucks was so outmaneuvered that it went broke and she had to loan it five million dollars of her personal funds.  

This woman, who we are told is the only person who can beat the republicans, had to borrow money to make it through Super Tuesday alive,and while the national Democratic party since the Clinton years has found the fifty State strategy to be key to its success (ie don't cede anything) this very experienced woman didn't even make a case to voters in states like Kansas, Colorado, and Alaska, or if she did, it wasn't a good enough one to keep her from getting clobbered.  And yet, we are to believe that in the general election, she will be effective in mobilizing resources in key states and voters out to the polls?

In short, Hillary had all the resources on her side she could hope for, but got outmaneuvered at every turn by Barack Obama.  I'm not writing her off yet by any means, she could very well still win the primary.  But if she does, it will be by just scraping by (If Obama wins, it would be one of the biggest upsets in political history).  If a candidate with all these advantages can barely scrape by in her own party's primary, I can hardly see how she can claim to the best candidate to propel that party to victory in a general election (particularly when she's already losing to their nominee).

I understand that we all have different reasons for supporting our candidates, but if you are supporting Hillary Clinton because you think she is the strongest candidate for the general election, I hope you will reconsider your choice.