Hillary: My High Negatives Are a Positive

[Dos Equis]

It's too bad that so many voters use 'likability' as the most important criterion for voting.

That's how we got stuck with Bush.....And we all know how that turned out.

I don't have a problem with likeability as a factor.  It's a very important quality for someone whose primary job is to use the bully pulpit to make us all feel good.  That's partly what made Reagan and Clinton successful.  Hillary just doesn't have it.  People don't trust her.  She doesn't impress me as sincere, or even a nice person.  She doesn't seem to handle criticism well, which is terrible for someone who must make many decisions with the help of advisors.  And this is without even looking at her political views.  I'm not sure how she pulls it off in the general, unless Republicans nominate someone equally as polarizing (like Newt).   

[Decker]

I don't have a problem with likeability as a factor.  It's a very important quality for someone whose primary job is to use the bully pulpit to make us all feel good.  ....   

You may be right.  Connecting with people is important for a leader.

But a leader can manufacture likability... the cult of personality comes to mind and that is the pathway to authoritarianism.

One would hope that "likability" springs from confidence in one's ideas and the articulation of those ideas instead of from a winning smile or playing the role of a cowboy clearing brush.

If a candidate's likability factor is predicated largely on the efforts of PR firms instead of ideas and rhetorical abilities, then we have candidates that are vacuous (ethically) and a danger to our country.

President Bush does not handle criticism well at all...remember his "I'm the Decider!" flourish....

[Dos Equis]

You may be right.  Connecting with people is important for a leader.

But a leader can manufacture likability... the cult of personality comes to mind and that is the pathway to authoritarianism.

One would hope that "likability" springs from confidence in one's ideas and the articulation of those ideas instead of from a winning smile or playing the role of a cowboy clearing brush.

If a candidate's likability factor is predicated largely on the efforts of PR firms instead of ideas and rhetorical abilities, then we have candidates that are vacuous (ethically) and a danger to our country.

President Bush does not handle criticism well at all...remember his "I'm the Decider!" flourish....

I'm not sure likeability can be manufactured . . . at least not over the long haul.  People are who they are.  Some people come across as stiff (like Gore).  If Hillary had her husband's personality she would be a much better candidate.  She comes across as a snob.  But that's just me (and about 40 percent of the people who respond to opinion polls. 

I think you can make an argument that Bush doesn't handle criticism well, but one of the things I like about him is his resolve.   

[Decker]

I'm not sure likeability can be manufactured . . . at least not over the long haul.  People are who they are.  Some people come across as stiff (like Gore).  If Hillary had her husband's personality she would be a much better candidate.  She comes across as a snob.  But that's just me (and about 40 percent of the people who respond to opinion polls. 

I think you can make an argument that Bush doesn't handle criticism well, but one of the things I like about him is his resolve.   

Consultants and PR firms manufacture image all the time.  Generally, focus groups help define the parameters of the image sought.  That's why Bush played the role of a cowboy rancher even though he dislikes horses.  It's the same reason he dressed up like an army man to declare victory over Iraq.

As for Clinton, is she a snob?

Does she say and do anything to get/hold power?

Is she a bitch?

Those are unavoidable character conclusions by her enemies.  I don't see the evidence though.

[Dos Equis]

Consultants and PR firms manufacture image all the time.  Generally, focus groups help define the parameters of the image sought.  That's why Bush played the role of a cowboy rancher even though he dislikes horses.  It's the same reason he dressed up like an army man to declare victory over Iraq.

As for Clinton, is she a snob?

Does she say and do anything to get/hold power?

Is she a bitch?

Those are unavoidable character conclusions by her enemies.  I don't see the evidence though.

I agree image can be manufactured.  What cannot be manufactured over the long haul is someone's likeability.  You can dress up a Queen Bee, but if she keeps opening her mouth she will eventually show her true colors.

I'm not a Hillary enemy.  I voted for her husband twice.  I just don't like her.  I'm not alone.  I've said this before, but when I watch her in debates she comes across as a cold fish. 

I think McCain has the same problem.      

[Hedgehog]

I don't have a problem with likeability as a factor.  It's a very important quality for someone whose primary job is to use the bully pulpit to make us all feel good.  That's partly what made Reagan and Clinton successful.  Hillary just doesn't have it.  People don't trust her.  She doesn't impress me as sincere, or even a nice person.  She doesn't seem to handle criticism well, which is terrible for someone who must make many decisions with the help of advisors.  And this is without even looking at her political views.  I'm not sure how she pulls it off in the general, unless Republicans nominate someone equally as polarizing (like Newt).   

I disagree.

For all his later flaws, Nixon had qualities as a politician, and a pragmatic.

But he was beaten by Kennedy, because he lacked charisma and good looks.

In the famous TV debate, those who saw the debate thought Kennedy won, but those who only heard it on the radio, thought Nixon won it.

And thanks to that debate, and probably some cheating, Kennedy won.

This is a problem IMO.

Would FDR ever have been able to win the presidency with his weak health?

Media is largely responsible for the focus on likeability.

Also, a big problem is that a lot of the candidates fortunes is decided, not by the political platform, but by the cashflow generated.

How many great potential US presidents have we missed out on?

I know we've at least had one great: FDR.

Other than him, there's been a few good ones, but not anyone who probably the best man in the nation at the current time.

[Dos Equis]

I disagree.

For all his later flaws, Nixon had qualities as a politician, and a pragmatic.

But he was beaten by Kennedy, because he lacked charisma and good looks.

In the famous TV debate, those who saw the debate thought Kennedy won, but those who only heard it on the radio, thought Nixon won it.

And thanks to that debate, and probably some cheating, Kennedy won.

This is a problem IMO.

Would FDR ever have been able to win the presidency with his weak health?

Media is largely responsible for the focus on likeability.

Also, a big problem is that a lot of the candidates fortunes is decided, not by the political platform, but by the cashflow generated.

How many great potential US presidents have we missed out on?

I know we've at least had one great: FDR.

Other than him, there's been a few good ones, but not anyone who probably the best man in the nation at the current time.

Sounds like you agree (not disagree).  Charisma and good looks are part of likeability.

It's true that cash flow plays a huge role, but that only comes into play after a good looking candidate with broad appeal has been hand picked by the powers that be.  Just look at Phil Graham.  He had millions, but looked like Gollum from Lord of the Rings.  He had no chance.   

Our best and brightest don't run.  If they did, we'd have George Mitchell running as a Democrat and Colin Powell running as a Republican in the current race.   

[Hedgehog]

Sounds like you agree (not disagree).  Charisma and good looks are part of likeability.

It's true that cash flow plays a huge role, but that only comes into play after a good looking candidate with broad appeal has been hand picked by the powers that be.  Just look at Phil Graham.  He had millions, but looked like Gollum from Lord of the Rings.  He had no chance.   

Our best and brightest don't run.  If they did, we'd have George Mitchell running as a Democrat and Colin Powell running as a Republican in the current race.   

Mm...ok.