As my two or three regular readers know, I am no fan of Hillary Clinton.
I thought her run against Barrack Obama for the 2008 nomination was characterized by rather distasteful tactics, but I also thought she redeemed herself with a steady and responsible performance as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.
I supported her for the Presidency in 2016, even though I did not particularly “like” her (whatever that means), because it was clear to me that she was the only sane choice (as current events are making more and more clear), because I try to vote with my head and am willing to vote for someone I do not “like,” if I think he or she is the competent choice.
For Pete’s sake, elections are not about “likes” (and certainly not about who you would like to have a beer with, if you drink beer, rather than
ambrosia Scotch). They are about competence and policy.
Over at Progress Pond, Martin Longman makes a good case that the “likeability” factor may have been much more important in the 2016 election than one would–er–like.