Interestingly no other candidate was focused upon in likeabilty except Hillary.

Is that because women are deemed to be subject to their "marriageability quotient" before they are allowed to participate in business or politics?

This was the most mysterious of questions of any that Hillary had to answer, and Obama's reassurance that she was likeable enough was extraordinarily inappropriate as if his blessing mattered.

It would be very difficult to question women of the audience as to whom among the men might be most likeable as a President - if indeed, that matters. Isn't the Presidency about competence instead?

No one truly measures a President by their likeability factor do they, as if they were going to marry them?

Not sure there has ever been a President that the entire population could agree upon as likeable, least of all the most recent ones.

Your analysis is just total BS.

The last two elections have basically boiled down, as has been said countless times, to whom the voters would rather sit down and have a beer with. Bush had a likeability that Kerry and Gore lacked.

Clinton is a total political animal, tainted with all that is bad about politics, willing to say anything to anybody to get elected. She is obviously not alone, but she also lacks the charisma, charm, warmth or whatever to connect anyway.

I can never forget the "I've always been a secret Yankees fan" crap when she was running for the Senate. It is just so obviously false. That she bothered with this just shows the contempt she has for voters; how dumb she thinks they all are.

Kerry's duck hunting escapades are exactly the same. They didn't work either. It's not a gender thing. It's whether or not you have the inherent charm to play the game without looking like you are playing it.

Give it up Kuruman, we can all see through you transparent skin!!

what do you mean sly?

As loathe as I frequently am to say it, I believe Kuruman is entirely correct. Bill and W were both elected as Prom King rather than President. Hillary fails in many ways, but her primary failure is not many people find her warm. Or even comfortably cool. She seems nearly reptilian at times, which isn't good. It's a shame, because she's awfully close in many ways, but every swing manages to be a miss, and she doesn't get the benefit of the doubt because no one wants an awkward silence in the press briefing.

Uh....thanks BoneDaddy...I think.

I agree entirely with your description, including with the fact that she is close in many ways.

Good analogy with the prom king./queen. It is patently obvious that Obama is the Prom King candidate this time. He is just so ......exciting!

Hillary's likeability level was questioned precisely because so many people questioned it. For whatever reason she is highly off- putting to many people. Fair? Maybe not. Reality? 100%.

In 1992 many writers spoke of Boomer women picturing themselves "in bed with" Bill Clinton. The first Pres. candidate in a while that cultivated that reaction and rightly or wrongly contributed to his "likeability" and election. Should he have given those misguided votes back? How ironic that Hillary, in some avenues, rejected by her own husband, finds herself rejected by voters largely because she is unappealing - not as a politician but as a human being.

I believe both the original poster and the "prom king" camp are correct. Yes, it is true that B. Clinton and George W. Bush were (in their first terms) elected in part by a tidal wave of goodwill of the sort related to proms, beds, and beers.

However, just because it was the case for these men does not negate the possibility (and, I believe, fact) that H. Clinton is suffering from disproportionately more stringent "likeability" factors laid on her by virtue of her gender.

As a person who at this stage is open to voting for any candidate from either party whose policies and articulation of them impress me the most, I must say that Obama and Edwards were off the mark in their treatment of Clinton during that debate. OP had it right: it was wholly inappropriate for Obama to engage with her in this "are you likeable?" issue, and equally inappropriate for Edwards to continually, throughout the campaign, harp on her attire.

Every issue that can possibly be used to denigrate a woman seeking power has been pulled out in the tackiest of fashions:

Physical appearance (via photos)? Check.

Age or Aging? Check.

Clothing style? Check.

Likeability and warmth? Check.

Tears or other symbols of presumed "weakness"? Check.

If I were the type of person who voted in a reactionary manner for people being unfairly treated, Clinton would be a lock for my vote.

As it happens, I continue to watch the campaigns unfold and hope the gender- and skintone baiting can come to an immediate end, so we can focus on the substantive issues.

Marzipan

This is a much more reasonable post than you other one. Still, the fact remains that male candidates are frequently subjected to this same scrutiny, and you just gloss over it because you don't have the gender explanation available. Kerry and Gore were called stiff and unlikeable, McCain has been called old, Ross Perot was called an elf (or was that just me who did that?), Edward has been called too much of a "pretty boy" to be taken seriously. I could go on. Until a women was in the mix I guess you just chalked all this up to the ugliness of politics. But now it is happening to a woman it is somehow different. Physical appearance has always been important with the American Presidency...stupid but true.

Until a women was in the mix I guess you just chalked all this up to the ugliness of politics. But now it is happening to a woman it is somehow different.

Completely true, and always pushed aside for a selective argument of convenience.

kuruman:

Kerry and Gore were called stiff and unlikeable, McCain has been called old, Ross Perot was called an elf (or was that just me who did that?), Edward has been called too much of a "pretty boy" to be taken seriously.

The issue isn't whether or not they were called those things, but by whom, in what contexts, on what platforms.

TV pundits characterizing a candidate is different from newspaper op-eds is different from poll respondents, and so on. All of which are different from a candidate facing commentary several times in on-screen debates and in other formal venues from other candidates who engage her, repeatedly, on her physical appearance, dress, and "warmth" or likeability.

Marzipan

I think you are trying too hard to make distinction here. It isn't succeeding with me.

Even if your claim is correct (and I'm not convinced it is) and assuming that it matters (I don't think it does), there are many innocent explanations. There has been an evolution of the debate process in-step with reality television. You know that debates will be much more personal and touch-feely from now on. Hillary has arrived just in time...but that's called coincidence, not sexism. The whole issue of Hillary's likeability is a big one. It is discussed on many levels in many venues. It's a big enough issue that it is, perhaps, fair to allow her to address it during a debate. Obama and Edwards are also likeable, which exaggerates the problem. If Hillary were up against Kerry and Gore I doubt it would be such a big issue. There is just no credible evidence for your position.