Christie's weight
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| OK, what do you all think about Eugene Robinson's column in today's Post discussing Chris Christie's weight? I am a HUGE fan of Rboinson's, and usually agree with everything he says, AND I'm also very concerned about obesity in the country. In fact you could say I'm a little fat phobic. BUT, I think Robinson was way off base here. Everyone can see Christie is fat. And you can draw your own conclusions about what that says or doesn't say about his discipline, habits, health, etc. But I just think the column was unnecessary and a little mean -- and Robinson strikes me as a very nice person. |
Anonymous
| I didn't read the column, but I think Christie's weight should be as irrelevant as Perry's and Romney's hair, but that doesn't mean it will be for low information voters. If Christie's weight is relevant at all it's only as a health issue. |
Anonymous
| He has a thyroid problem-don't they all |
Anonymous
|
When I first read the headline, I thought it would be a discussion of how voters might perceive Christie's weight and the impact that could have on the campaign. That is an interesting issue to consider.
Instead, the column was all OMG, Christie's fat and he's unhealthy and those stupid fatties are such a drain on our healthcare costs and OMG he needs to eat a salad and take a walk. It was neither well reasoned nor especially interesting. I'm sorry I wasted my time reading it. |
Anonymous
| I think the more relevant information is the medical disclosure he will make. At his age, he isn't highly likely to keel over in 4-8 years unless he has heart disease. |
Anonymous
I don't remember him saying that. I saw an interview with him and he said his problem was overeating. He was very frank about it. I didn't read the article OP posted. I just think using a man's weight as a political or moral issue is wrong. If looks were that important, Brad Pitt would be president. |
Anonymous
|
Lame article by Robinson. I usually read and agree with his stuff. I also regretted that read his Christie piece. Kinda like how I feel after pack of twinkies.
It is interesting that EJ Dionne wrote about Christie yesterday. I think the left fears the, err...big man. |
Anonymous
| He's too fat and greasy to be president. |
Anonymous
| His weight will probably keep him out of the WH. But they said Ross Perot's height would, too. |
Anonymous
| Ew. I'd never vote for a fat fuck. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
|
Haven't read the article. I do think weight is more of an issue than "hair." I think it's more comparable to the concerns people had about McCain's age. It is a valid concern. I have thyroid issues and have been overweight in the past (though not obese) and I do feel my health status was poorer than it is now. The presidency is a stressful job and his weight increases his chances of a host of issues including heart attack. This isn't about looks. I think the weight looks teddy bearish, but the potential health issues concern me. |
Anonymous
Naw, it's an ugly, sloppy, glutton fat man, not health issue. 
|
Anonymous
| It's really not ok to call people such mean things because they are overweight. If you don't like him because of his politics, fine. If you think it's indicative of a health problem, that's fair. But ugly, greasy, and fat "f" are really not appropriate. |
Anonymous
|
I wouldn't give him a second look. I am about fifteen pounds overweight and I suffer from lack of pushing the potato chips out of the way. Christie is about 100+ pounds overweight. He lacks discipline in everything that is edible.
FWIW, there are questions regarding his ability to get reelected in NJ. |