Like with Obama, it is a childish, irrational lifting of demeanor over substance, when it is substance not demeanor that produces the material acts of any presidency.
It is irrational because in the long span of time after a president leaves office it is their official acts and the consequences of those acts, not their demeanor, that will be of greatest note in history.
The primary importance is not what we think of them, personally, but what we think of what they do.
Pretty sure I know what I think of his “accomplishments”.