People tend to think of elections for high office as sui generis rather than as what they are: hiring decisions, for a particularly onerous but important job.
Once we see elections for high office as hiring decisions, some things become a bit puzzling.
It is often seen as important that a candidate for high office have a strong and sincere personal commitment to a platform. But why? Suppose I hire a lawyer to represent my interests. It might be nice if the lawyer had a strong and sincere personal commitment to the things I want the lawyer to represent me in respect of, but it is not at all necessary. What is needed is that the lawyer further my interests, and do so along rough lines that I may sketch, in a professional and effective way. The lawyer does not need to think that it would be better for the world if I get what I want—she may simply think that it is good to have in place a legal system where almost everyone gets able legal representation for the furtherance of their interests, and that what I want isn’t so bad as to make it immoral for her to represent me. One can even imagine a lawyer who specializes in representing a particular kind of interest without actually sharing that interest, but holding that nonetheless it is important that an interest of that sort should be represented.
There is an interest in the personal life of candidates that would be seen as creepy and likely illegal in most other hiring decisions.
Of course, these kinds of things might be appropriate in light of the specific features of high political office. But they shouldn’t be taken for granted.