Thursday, January 31, 2008

Likeability Factor

Who do you like? Which candidate for president would you feel most comfortable having dinner with? Who would you like to spend an hour with just shooting the breeze? Big Frank will give you his read on this. Remember, we are not talking about their political positions, their voting record, or the ideological stance - we are only talking about how likeable they are - are they good company - nice people? And let's rate them on a 1 to 5 scale where:

1. = toxic in many ways; keep them away from me
2.= extremely irritating; barely tolerable
3.= nothing really irritating, but nothing really attractive or enjoyable either
4.= very nice person - enjoyable to be with
5.= my best buddy; we've bonded - we're going out for coffee and they are coming to my birthday party

Republicans:

John McCain: John gets a 2; he's the kind of guy that everyone wants others to believe is nice, because he can play nice when he wants to. However, he has a nasty streak that when let loose is extremely illogical and obsessive - not to mention irritating. Also this thing with the quietly modulated tones and feign reasonableness is just a sham and an irritating one for when he goes into this drone it has a kind of hypnotic effect that lulls the listener into quiet and agreement. Then, only later, upon emerging from the trance does the listener realize that John pulled a fast one on them and monopolized the conversation with a lot of well-modulated platitudes that don't upon closer examination mean anything at all. You do NOT want to spend much time with him.

Mitt Romney: Mitt gets a 2 also; he's best described as a twit. He has a kind of irritating prissiness both in his mannerisms and also in his voice. He would be better tolerated as a phone friend than one whom you had to look at in person. So 2 in person, but 3 on the phone, texting, or e-mail. He would actually enhance his campaign by going virtual. While many might think his iconic/clip art good looks helps - it is more than undermined by his prissy twittiness. Mitt rhymes with Twit.

Ron Paul: Ron gets a solid 4. He is a good listener, never interrupts, doesn't go on and on and on and on like Mit and John, essentially filling every given moment with their patter. And, what Ron does say actually has some thought behind it, is consistent, and is refreshingly iconoclastic, which makes for good conversation. Ron would be fun to hang with.

Mike Huckabee: Mike gets a solid 3. I think of Mike as the outgoing, good-natured neighbor that you meet at a barbeque. He's affable enough and doesn't offend; although, the preacher in him while not exactly setting off alarm bells does make you wary. He's kind of like the well-dressed guys with backpacks who knock on your door. They would like you to think that they're just all-American nice kids striking up a conversation - but, they have an agenda! Well, Mike has one too, and he can't hide it forever. Mike sorta rhymes with hype.

Democrats (John Edwards is still included because his campaign isn't over it's just "suspended".

Hillary Clinton: Hillary gets a 2. She is like the character Mrs. Jellyby in Charles Dickens' Bleak House: she is so devoted to her special projects - currently becoming president in order to continue the Clinton dynasty, that she has no time or interest in anyone. She would be in the room with you but either answering the phone, dictating letters, or looking over your shoulder to see if there was a big donor behind you. Once it was discovered that you weren't a big lobbiest, big donor, big Democrat, or big anything - she would have no use for you and she would be gone.

Barack Obama: Barack gets a 3. He is the kind of guy that appears to be very likeable and everyone says, "He sure seems like a nice guy." However, when pressed nobody has ever really talked to him, been over to his house, had coffee, or really knows anything about him. He's that guy at the party that you see fleetingly in the corner listening to someone, and then when you next see him he's on his way out. He's in fact unapproachable but liked.

John Edwards: John gets a 4. The smile - it turns out, is real. He really is a nice guy. He knows how to listen, speaks his mind, and has a good sense of humor. In addition, he knows how to keep a conversation going because he isn't self-absorbed, preachy, or distracted. When he talks to you he is really with you. He'll even let you muss up his hair.

2 comments:

dan patterson said...

Well Frank all I have to say about your rating system in determining who to have dinner with is that it is fatally flawed! You are basing your ratings on your viewing of the television snippets of these people. How can you reach these conclusions solely from 30 to 60 second TV segments? You don't know what you're talking about!!!

Big Frank Dickinson said...

Dan,
You certainly do hit the nail on the head. Nobody can really get to truly know any of the these candidates, and yet everyone does make judgements. More often than not the judgements are based on the "snippets" you cite: however, that doesn't change the fact they people make them nonetheless. Then they back these judgements up with ad hoc confabulations. So the question isn't "how can you reach these conclusions" from short snippets, but can you prevent people from doing so?

Big Frank