"Liking" a Presidential candidate

Let's face it, you are never going to have a personal
relationship with the next President of the United
States. You may get to shake his or her hand, pose
for a photo, get to say a word or two, but it will
be rare for most Americans to actually share their
lives with the next President.

So get over the "likeability" thing. This country
has dire problems, not fixed by someone you like or
don't like but someone who has the knowledge and
experience of working with others in the Congress,
world and state governments; knowing how
to work the system to get what we need done.

If you were hiring the best person for a job, you'd
hire the most experienced for the money, not the
one you like the best. You wouldn't hire your best
friend if he or she didn't have what it takes.

I may not "like" the next President, but I will vote
for the most experienced one.

:shrug:

Has met all the world leaders already and visited 80 countries.
Knows how the White House works.
Knows how the Congress works.
Knows how state government works.
Has led legislation across party lines and gotten legislation passed in the Congress
Has worked with NGO's and the U.N. on world projects
Has worked in business
Has established reforms in healthcare and children's issues
Has worked across the aisle with Republicans and was re-elected to the Senate with a large numbers
Doesn't need lots of supervision or other people making decisions
Has a huge rolodex, no introductions needed

gee...I guess this looks a lot like Hillary's experience.

Knowing how Congress works doesn't necessarily mean that the candidate can get Congress to pass his/her agenda. Even if we have a Democratic majority in both houses, our party is notorious for having mavericks and independents who don't automatically endorse every proposal a Democratic president puts out there. What loyalists can the candidate count on in Congress to help pass the agenda? Who can be counted on to make tough decisions and stick to them, even though it may cost them politically? We have tough times ahead. We have a horrible mess to clean up. Actions to be taken won't always be popular, but they may well be necessary to ensure our survival. The next President will require the full backing of Congress.

No President has had the "full backing of the Congress" in
terms of all bills. I can say that the full Congress may
have respect for the office of the President. I can say
that a large majority may have the respect for the person
in that office.

I do respect a President who can improve the conditions
in this country with the help of those who want to improve
it also, albeit Republicans or Democrats.

fighting Congress. We don't have time to waste. Do you have concrete evidence to suggest that either Clinton or Obama has made the connections in Congress that will make it cooperative with the new Chief Executive?

and same health benefits for National Guard as the Army
gets. I don't have her whole record in front of me,
but there have been articles written about her and
McCain working together on the environment etc.

but what about working with Democrats in Congress? What is her relationship with Reid? Is she considered a "leader" in the Senate or merely a "team player"? How many Democratic Senators have signed onto bills she has sponsored? What is her relationship with the Blue Dog Democrats, which include both my senators, Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln?

...I still can't understand what was to like about that arrogant, incurious, illiterate, unaccomplished, incompetent man.)

Edited for grammar.

We just had dinner with a couple last night
who are both for Barack because they don't
"like" Hillary. Instead of delving into why...
I know why...it was 8 years of constant media
and Republican lies, investigations, hearings,
etc. that made people's stomach churn. If you
separate all that from Hillary...who had little
to do with any of it, save some unfamiliarity
with how some of the processes in the White
House worked, you see a woman who has devoted
herself mostly to public service all these
years and more than competently.

...beyond the distractions so effectively put up by the sensationalist mainstream media and rabid Hillary haters.

As for the 'likeability' issue, I've also heard many anecdotes of non-Hillary supporters who change their view of her when they actually meet her in person. She doesn't come across as warm and fuzzy as Bill did/does, but by golly, I want someone with experience, knowledge of the international situation, deep knowledge of what she's talking about, etc. in the White House this time around. In fact, the things that Paul Krugman and the NY Times editorial board have written express a lot of what I think about Hillary's competence and readiness for the presidency.

(Heh, literacy and articulateness in English are big pluses, too!)

Hillary Clinton. And her husband.

and a foul-souled Dick Nixon to defeat.

So they threw in together and got it done.

Most of us are willing to be hard-bitten realists when the common enemy is shredding the Constitution to bits before our very eyes.

Part of hiring the right person for a leadership job is whether or not people will follow them. We have all seen people promoted simply because they had years of service and yet they were not good leaders. Polarizing figures usually do not get the support they need.

I can think of some CEO's that we would rather not
ever see again, but they got the job done.

Re: your graphic of DK...
I think DK is so smart and I agree with most of his
policy stands...one of his problems was he's short
and it's a horrible reflection on how we vote
just on appearances alone.

I think it is a primal tribal human need. It is important to believe in both the competence
and trustworthiness. One of the ways they gauge competence is by experience. Another is judgment.

One of the ways they determine trustworthiness is likability. Is this person like me?
Do I relate to him/her on a personal level.

it would be a good reality check for someone
to ask themselves the harder questions like
can this person really do the job without a
lot of help or influence? How long will it take
for this candidate to get up to speed with
everything. Do we have time for on the job
training this time around? Do we have an idea
of who that person will put in his or her Cabinet?
Do we really know who will be advising that
person? Do we care if that person puts Republicans
in that Cabinet?

I am never going to have a personal relationship
with this candidate. Do I care more about how I
like this person or whether my country is going
to go into a deep and long lasting recession and
my children and grandchildren will live with our
debt and position in the world as we are now?

is that unconsciously, we do have a personal relation with our leaders. That is why
so much emotionality plays such an important part in politics, albeit around here.

We give rational justifications for our decisions and flatter ourselves with our reasoning
ability. But much of what we decide is based on unconscious feelings rather than conscious thought.

That is why the likability thing matters so much: As in I want to drive my opponent's negatives up.

I think I said that in my prior post.

I like Obama's speeches. I don't trust him. He's
lied in the campaign. I don't want another liar
in the White House. I don't know who he'd have
advise him. He's mentioned putting the Gropinator
in his Cabinet. He's been clueless about who
Arnold really is and what's he done to CA. He
was clueless about what Reagan really did to
this country. He needs to read history before
making comparisons of himself to JFK, MLK and
Lincoln. Huge generalities just because he's
a new and fresh voice and face.

Anyone with a good speechwriter can give a good
speech...I have heard some moving sermons but
I don't want to elect a President on that basis.

We are so enamored of the "newest" package in this
country, even though it may contain unGodly things
inside. Look past the pretty face, the pretty
speeches to who and what this person really is all
about.

what we project on to our leaders (I thought you took some psychology classes). It has nothing to do with what that leader is actually like, since we don't know them.

Hillary is a lot more like me than Obama though...and I trust her more as well.

:shrug:

We vote for the person whom we more familiar with.
The root of familiar is the same as family, unconsciously we
feel that person is from our tribe and therefore trustworthy.

I really think the trust thing is the biggest decider for most of us
either unconsciously or consciously. That is why negative advertising works.

It destroys that link between the candidate and the voter at the unconscious level.

based on projection. It's not really possible to like someone you don't know.

Campaign consultants do not think it is a fantasy. They know that if you make the opponent less likable their
candidate is more likely to win.

but let me just say that campaign consultants are who has turned political campaigns into the poll-obsessed sound-bite bullshit they are today, along with the idiot pundits. The aim is to win over the stupid voter, and yes it seems to work.

The consultants understand that the most important asset a candidate has is his or her likability.
The reason these voters look stupid to you or I is because they voted irrationally, i.e. they voted
emotionally. We all do it. It is just that we have different emotional responses to different candidates.

God help us if we did.

you might want to consider taking a course in psychology or reading a few books on modern campaigning theory.

Being in denial about the importance of our emotions on our decision making actually makes us more susceptible
to mass marketing and propaganda.

not being so condescending.

As for denial, campaign consultants these days show a remarkable amount of denial about how important actual issues are to voters. Most of these consultants came from advertising, and that is their mindset.

instead of listening to what exactly is being said,
they just hear the constant media belittling and
sweeping lies about what was said. Much of the talking media's gotten
very lazy and unscrupulous. People have to work harder
at knowing exactly what was said and meant by any of
the candidates.

"what was said and meant by any of the candidates" And it is silly to blame the mass media
when we have the internet to help us with the research.

The media is not our friend. That is why we must do this on our own.

so why bother to figure out "what was said and meant by any of the candidates"? The media is not our friend, but don't blame them? Make up your mind.

Outside of bible-thumping country many question the media, use the internet to check information, and don't respond to emotionally manipulate campaign tactics, and have been doing so for a long time.

Unfortunately the media hasn't really asked
the tough questions of Obama...his color and popularity have
kept hands off who he really is and is all about.

I don't think he's up to the job and I don't
know who he would rely on. Maybe the media ought
to really investigate him or even talk about
the points he wrote about himself in his books.

We are so focused on appearances...a smile, a laugh,
a gladhander, a pretty face, soothing words. They
don't really tell you much about a person's character,
strengths, weaknesses, experience, focus.

priorities are. I guess some people feel the need to feel like the President is their friend or family member. I have never felt that way and honestly can't envision ever having that feeling.

I supported Gore, Kerry(to a lesser extent) and now Hillary because I think they are all experienced, tough and ready to take the job on day one. I have felt no desire to get all weepy at any of their speeches. Nor have I ever fantasized about having them over to a barbecue or anything of the sort. And frankly I have found none of the 3 to be warm and cuddly. But why would I need to feel that way? I just want someone in there that will be able to handle the job well. My life goes on after the election.

I support John Edwards because I like his message and I've studied the issues.

If at some point I feel that I should switch my vote it will be to Hillary Clinton because of her experience.

speaking in Tennessee and her message sounded more like John Edward's message than her typical speeches. I think JE is driving and forming the terms of the debates and I think he needs to continue to do so.

The thing I like about Hillary the most is she knows the score. Hillary is a realist, she knows the world players, she knows what she's up against, and let's face it she was the FIRST to try and do something about healthcare. I remember her fight against the republicans back in the 90's and she was before her time.

As for Obama - I don't think he's a bad person. He is probably sincere in what he's saying, BUT I think he's naive.

maybe someone can explain that to me.

ISN'T getting more votes?

I think there are lots of factors. Lack of media coverage, less money than the other two candidates, the "historical" factor of voting for the first black or woman president, being perceived as a loser because of his run with Kerry, etc. etc. It would be hard to pin it down to any one thing.

There must be something else...I have
a friend who just doesn't trust him...like
a car salesman. Unfair I know.

the typical white male who has always run this country.

He talks as a progressive but his record isn't
much different.

I look at their positions, and the feasibility of implementing them, as well as the relationship the candidate will have with Congress. I "liked" Jimmy Carter, but didn't vote for him for President (voted third party) because I thought he was naive in his attitude that, as an outsider who was hostile to Congress, he'd be able to come in as President and get his legislation passed. History proved me right on that point.

My support of a candidate never hinges on whether or not I like them--it hinges upon whether they have good plans and are capable of getting them implemented. The only quality that I consider that comes close to "likability" is character. If a candidate is known for lying, going back on his word, or ignoring a situation or group merely because they pose politically inconvenient problems, I don't vote for them. We are facing some very serious challenges, worse than anything we've seen before. We need someone with courage and a broad vision to see us through these times.

And I would say that Bill and Hillary are two different
people. They may agree on some issues, and others not.
I think it's fairer and more rational to speak of them
as separate people as many wives and husbands do disagree.

I think Hillary is actually the more focused, steadfast,
feet on the ground, harder worker than Bill. Of all the
candidates, I believe her experience will move this country
to a more stable position.

Edwards has made corporations and corporate control a
large issue in this campaign, which plays well to progressives
and netrooters, but the reality is that if he becomes
president, he'll have little to do to rein them in. It takes
Congress to pass new laws and frankly with the Congress
we have now...few new laws regarding trade or business
will be enacted. I don't understand why Edward's hasn't
gotten a bigger bounce. His initial talking about two
Americas didn't really resonate as the largest issue we
should be focusing on, although the economy certain
has been tanking for awhile and corporations have been
scamming the system.

When you look at the staggering and geometric concentration of wealth and power that has happened in almost every industry as a result of mergers and other consolidation, it cries out for both enforcement of existing anti-trust law and enactment of new regulations to stop this.

A president, as the leader of the party has the ability -- and should exercise it -- of pushing Congress to pass policies that do directly address such issues and problems.

Bill Clinton didn't. I haven't seen any indication Hillary will either, except to vaguely snip around the edges.

feel more comfortable sitting at a table with, but that doesn't matter a whit to me. While I think experience is important, it isn't the most important thing either. Hell, we've had "experienced" leaders for the past 7 years and look where we are. I look at two things: the issues and how close they are to my own feelings and beliefs and credibility/trust in a person.

Unfortunately, we are fighting against what I think is a majority of people out there who don't educate themselves and do vote based on likeability.

unfortunately...
I always have hope that the best will win, but
as we've seen over the years, not always the case.

I wonder if Bush ever bought those guys who
voted for him a beer or they've lost their house
to unscrupulous lenders or lives in an illegal
invasion and war instead?

"The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were."
-- John Fitzgerald Kennedy

"The Republican nominee-to-be, of course, is also a young man. But his approach is as old as McKinley. His party is the party of the past. His speeches are generalities from Poor Richard's Almanac. Their platform, made up of left-over Democratic planks, has the courage of our old convictions. Their pledge is a pledge to the status quo--and today there can be no status quo."
-- John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 1960

"Democracy is no easy form of government. Few nations have been able to sustain it. For it requires that we take the chances of freedom; that the liberating play of reason be brought to bear on events filled with passion; that dissent be allowed to make its appeal for acceptance; that men chance error in their search for the truth."-- Robert F. Kennedy

"What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists, is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."-- Robert F. Kennedy

"Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us." --- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

"The law may not be able to make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me."
-- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
"I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality .... I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word."
-- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

“A politics that is not sensitive to the concerns and circumstances of people's lives, a politics that does not speak to and include people, is an intellectually arrogant politics that deserves to fail.” ---Paul Wellstone

“The future will not belong to those who sit on the sidelines. The
future will not belong to the cynics. The future belongs to those who
believe in the beauty of their dreams.”---Paul Wellstone

I'm making an argument for those just voting
their guts and not their brains.

that I "like" people because of who they are, their ideas, and their ability to communicate those ideas to me. I do not like people when I do not trust what they have to say. I do not like people who attempt to gain popularity by ridiculing others. Never have. Nothing to do with my gut. Everything to do with my belief in basic human decency. There are some characteristics of human behavior I choose to admire, and those I choose to reject. Words matter. They last forever. Bommerang.

I don't want someone who knows how to 'work the system'. I want someone who know how to work within a system. Those are two vastly different things--the diff. between Hillary and Obama.

Frankly being a politician is a career. Knowing
how the system works and the processes to getting
work done are both important. It's not a pretty
job for the fainthearted. Deals are done,
agreements made between friends and enemies. Tit
for tat. You wash my back, I'll wash yours.
We shouldn't be naive about how tough that business
is or the tolls it takes.

I want a reality based candidate. I want someone
who's been through the grinder and come back twice
as strong.

...concerned.

I recall the late Sen. Paul Simon saying, during his cut-short presidential bid in '88, that running for the presidency isn't the same as running for sainthood.

I find Hillary supporters to generally be more realistic and open-minded in their views.

...take a little longer than 4 sentences to explain--and someone who has 'been through the grinder' frequently doesn't know how to climb out of it. She just drags everyone else in with her. I don't want a slick 'baby, I can work the system, work it!' con in the White House.

Well, I do trust them to be politicians and behave as such. In much the same way I trust guys selling watches in alleys to try and sell me a watch and call it a Rolex.

“The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same.”
Marie Beyle