I'm watching an old Obama interview and it's even more obvious given the context of time that he was much more of a well-spoken salesman for the Democratic brand than lightning rod of change. His manner of speaking is so measured and political that we can smell him as 'media trained'. He indulges a joke, makes a few extremely non-commital comments about 'changing views in society' on some topic or other, and then remembers to promote his latest product. Some people liked him for being measured and non-confrontational. But it seems fairly clear that he basically towed the party line. He was a company man. (And that's what he was employed to be).
It's interesting that a lot of the arguments against Hilary Clinton in more recent elections were accusing her of the same sort of thing. The trained personality. The suited sales-pitch. That's always been an element of democracy, because there is a sell involved. But it eventually gets to the point where the 'front', the 'public face' becomes so endemic and so carefully controlled that it becomes increasingly obvious. In trying to make itself more relatable, it becomes unrelatable. We'll call it 'The Clinton Effect'. You're welcome, ma'am.
The best analogy may be like watching a robot trying to imitate a human. It is saying the right things, perhaps, but there is a kind of political 'uncanny valley' where you realise that a politician is a stylised imitation. Then what initially appealed to you about them, their likeability and approachableness, revolts you as you realise it was designed to be that way. It is a lure, a trap. "I've been had! My senses are not trustworthy!"