Rather than "likeability" (which is a something that is used, used against, and horribly weaponised, against women, people of colour, and, above all, women who are people of colourl), for my part, I'd far prefer to see competence, compassion, basic decency, an ability to delegate, intelligence and integrity, an ethical existence, and the capacity to make good decisons (good judgment) under pressure as criteria to be considered when choosing a ruler.
Likeability - like charisma, or charm - while attractive, is over-rated in humans; in a political leader, there are other quaities I prefer to see, (good grief - was Donald Trump ever deemed likeable? Even by a dog?) and - while I have enjoyed a glass of beer or wine with individuals who have held political office - it is not something I consider to be remotely necessary.
Empathy, yes, "Likeability", no.
The thing is - and here, I have actually met Bill Clinton - and his "likeability" (William Jefferson Clinton, that is, who - as it happens - has it in spades - he is one of the most awesome and impressively charismatic individuals - and yes, positively oozes sex appeal - I have met in my life, the kind of individual whose megawatt charisma, and sheer intelligence, and capacity to make it seem (for the few short minutes he meets with you) - by giving you his full focus and undivided attention - that you are the most interesting and compelling person he has met) - is off the scale.
And yes, when I met him, the sleaze factor (not least as it applied to his treatment of Monica Lewinsky) was well known, - and while a voice in the back of my head did offer hissed reminders about feminism, ethics, and sleaze, - I will not deny that I was grinning like an idiot when I met him.
As was everyone else, male and female alike.
But, does that - or, should that - determine his electability to office?
