'Christie's Hefty Burden'

Update: Now Bloomberg's Michael Kinsley has gotten into the act and is even more blunt: "Look, I’m sorry, but New Jersey Governor Chris Christie cannot be president: He is just too fat."

* * * * * *

As you can imagine, the above headline caught my attention this morning on washingtonpost.com. It was a piece by Post columnist Gene Robinson, who is usually a level-headed pundit. Then I heard a discussion of it on Morning Joe, where Robinson often appears as an analyst. Commentators on the show were giving him hell for the piece.

So while munching on my tuna sandwich at midday, I read it. And I must say that I'm shocked that a national opinion writer would spend an entire column opining on N.J. Gov. (and potential presidential candidate) Chris Christie's weight.

To be fair, Robinson wasn't exactly calling Christie a fat slob. And he correctly noted how obesity adds greatly to our nation's healthcare costs. But he was drawing attention to a matter normally considered too personal, even by national political standards. Consider:

Christie is just 49 and has four young children; politics aside, I’m sure he wants to be around to share the milestones in their lives. He prides himself on bullheaded determination and speaks often about the need for officials to display leadership. Well, Gov. Christie, lead thyself.

Robinson further suggested that Christie "eat a salad and take a walk."

I recall during the 2009 N.J. governor's race, incumbent Jon Corzine ran an ad accusing Christie of "throwing his weight around" as U.S. attorney -- a not-so-subtle reference to his opponent's girth. But even in heavily Democratic New Jersey, it backfired. The Republican Christie bested Corzine by 3.5 points in a three-way race.

Oddly, the Robinson column could have the same effect, which is ironic considering that Robinson conceded that "Politically, I disagree with Christie on almost everything."

But does Robinson have a double standard?

Christie’s weight is as legitimate an issue as the smoking habit that President Obama says he has finally kicked.

Did Robinson write an entire column on Obama's weakness for Marlboro Lights? If not, then I can only conclude Robinson wrote today's column because he doesn't like Christie's politics.

That's when good editors come in handy. Isn't there anyone at The Post's copy desk who can look a star columnist in the eye and say, "Are you sure you really want to go with this?"

Cain and the Not So Stable

No, West isn't at a Nazi
event -- he's visiting a Holocaust
museum in Jerusalem.

I've been hearing a lot of noise lately from Tea Party types who are bored with the dreary Republican presidential field for 2012 and are looking for a fresh face who just might stand a chance against The Great One.

Two names come up more often than you might think: Herman Cain and Allen West. Cain, a businessman and unsuccessful candidate for U.S. Senate in 2004, just announced his candidacy yesterday. West, a first-term congressman from Florida and retired Army officer and Iraq war veteran, is being urged to run but has not yet committed.

Cain has never held elected office and West has been a Congressman for all of four months. So what do they have in common? They're both conservative and African American. Since its inception, the Tea Party has been dogged by charges of racism within its ranks — unfairly in many cases.

Why then would so many of those TPers gravitate toward these two black men? Well, if you're a Tea Partier looking to dispel the notion that you're a racist, there's no better way than to embrace a black candidate who shares your views.

Here's the problem with that. If TPers were beating the drum for someone like Colin Powell, that would be one thing. But Cain and West, while interesting characters, are no better prepared to assume the presidency than was Obama in 2008.

Tea Party types are fond of saying, with some justification, that Barack Obama had one of the thinnest resumes of any incoming president. But doesn't supporting the candidacies of Cain and West feed into the stereotype of the underachieving affirmative-action black man?

Conversely, when progressives ridicule the candidacies of Cain and West, don't they leave themselves open to charges that they placed their faith in a similarly unqualified man?

As the saying goes, "Just asking ..."