ABC News' Joel Siegel has a question that deserves asking. Maybe. Probably not, but what the hell, we can certainly get away with asking it…
[I]t has been 100 years since Americans sent a true heavyweight to the White House, when William Howard Taft tipped the scales at well over 300 pounds.
Nor is Christie just "slightly overweight." So there is no delicate way to ask this: Is Chris Christie too fat to win?
You know, I think there might be more delicate ways than that. Like, how about, "Is Chris Christie to overweight to win? Or, "Given our body-image obsessed media, does Christie's excessive weight put him at a disadvantage in a general election against the much slimmer Barack Obama?"
Still, I guess Siegel could have even less delicate, and he deserves credit for holding back as well as he did. I assume that "Is Chris Christie too much of a big fat obese tub of adipose lard to win?" was excised in earlier drafts.
"Overweight people have much less of a chance of getting a job, they have much less of a chance of keeping a job … they are paid less than those who are thin," said David Birdsell, dean of the School of Public Affairs at Baruch College in New York…
You know who else that's true of? Everybody except for tall skinny white men with nice thick heads of hair and degrees from Ivy League schools. You know, like this guy. You think maybe there's a chance that we should start reconsidering what makes a candidate viable? Or maybe even that writing articles about whether or not fat guys are too big and gross to win elections might be contributing to the problem?
If a candidate is not "fit and trim," he might even face ridicule, as Christie recently did from late night talk show host David Letterman.
Oh, well. Checkmate. I tip my king, good sir. We certainly cannot have a president who is made fun of on late night television. Can you even imagine the scandal?
Photo by Slaven Vlasic/Getty Images Entertainment/Getty Images
Tags: ABC, Chris Christie, Health, New Jersey, Primaries, Republicans