I honestly couldn't give less of a shit over whether or not Hilary smiles enough, or is "likeable" enough. All I care about is whether or not she's capable of doing this job and knows her stuff politically.
I mean, geez, if I ran for president I'd probably get a lot of flak because I tend to speak softly and I'm a very quiet, kinda shy person in general. Everyone handles social situations differently, and while I can understand the argument that for a job like the presidency, you do need to have something of a handle on the gladhanding and whatnot, at the same time, if she did do all of that, she'd probably get accused of being a typical slick politician, too. If I recall rightly, that was a big issue people had with Romney, that he just acted too much like a slick politician and wasn't personable enough. But at the same time, depending on the situation, I'm sure there's moments when him acting more "politician-y" was the right way to go. Politics is different in many ways from other social situations, it's a weird world in so many ways, and I don't think it's always easy for ANY politician, male or female, to really just be "themselves" as a result.
It all kinda reminds me of how Bush Jr. got votes in 2000 because "he's the sort of guy you could have a beer with". Whether or not a candidate smiles enough or whether or not you can have a beer with them or whatever shouldn't be people's main criteria when deciding to support and vote for them. Their policy stances, and their experience or lack thereof, should be people's main concern.
One thing that i think is to Clinton's advantage now, is that the media went SO far overboard covering and constantly asking and covering Benghazi and the foundation and emails, that it feels like, it just isn't worth asking so much any more. After getting the same answer 100 times, there really is little left to say.
I think there's some truth to that, yeah. And I also think you're right that those issues probably will come up again in future debates.