Michael Kinsley writes of Chris Christie's presidential readiness:
"He is just too fat."
That's not an electoral judgement from Kinsley; it's a qualitative indictment (i.e. Christie is too fat to be a good president).
His thinly-argued reason?
"A presidential candidate should be judged on behavior and character, not just on policies."
Christie's behavior and character here refer to how much he likes Denny's and Krispy Kreme.
Kinsley immediately recognizes that he's implicitly condemning Barack Obama for failing to quit smoking and Bill Clinton for failing to zip it up, so he makes a distinction between behaviors.
Controlling what you eat and how much is not easy, and it’s harder for some people than for others. But it’s not as difficult as curing a chemical addiction.
Whether Kinsley is right or not, Christie's weight will clearly be an issue, if only because so many will talk about whether it is an issue.
Both Haley Barbour and Mike Huckabee said last year that you could judge their presidential intentions by their waistlines. Barbour lost weight; Huck didn't. Neither ran.
The question for Christie is whether weight is a crucial part of his populist appeal, and it probably is.
If he's as secure in himself to not let his handlers handle his love handles, then people assume he's secure enough in what he believes to stick to his guns. That's Christie's appeal, after all -- conviction -- and weight seems to add to it.
