While I generally agree with this, there's probably some biased revisionism going on. Namely, we will remember winning candidates as charismatic in part because they happened to win. For elections "on the margin" (1968, 1976, 1988, 2000, 2004, 2016 etc.), I could see us easily arguing the loser was "obviously more charismatic" in the event they had actually won.
Bush’s charisma and Gore’s and Kerry’s lack of charisma were talked about before election night, and if Hillary won in 2016, people would say it’s because Trump is divisive, not because Hillary is more charismatic.