Absolutely agree with the above post. Though this is nothing new, personality politics has been around for a long, long time.
To answer your question, I blame the party but also the people. The party put forward the candidate they think would be able to best win (at least usually, the GOP seem to be putting forward a select of rather awful candidates at the moment..), and if the best they can come up with is 'personality' above substance then I'd say that is the sort of voter they're aiming for - those who vote for politicians not on the basis of policy decisions but on whether they think he's "my sort of guy" or "good for the country".
These broad strokes need charismatic individuals which can strike a chord with many people, and unfortunately intellectuals tend not to be in this bracket: their love of detail seems to alienate more than bind people, unless they're especially skilled orators. My frustration comes from treating these candidates as serious contenders. Perhaps if people were to show their frustration and disdain for party officials picking such one dimensional nominees we'd see a change, the problem is that a personal attack on that sort of politician is a recipe for failure: it's exactly what they want you to do.
"Mr Fancy Pants over there just said a lot of complicated things. But I know what I know. Which is that what I know is the best thing for this country and the best thing for hard working people, and Mr Fancy Pants' policy will not help the country with the problems it needs now".
Generalisation. Nobody walks away from television debates with anything but a few sound bytes, the skill of these politician, or moreso their speech writers, is to make those count.