Would you vote for this candidate for president.....

[LynneSin]

Say this candidate has a long career as a senator/US Rep/Governor (pick one) where they have shown all the progressive values we support here at DU. The candidate is vocal about helping the poor, has pushed to promote equal rights for all people and things global warming is the greatest crisis on this earth. They have actively pushed to end all three major wars the US has been engaged in this past decade plus - Afghanistan, Iraq and the worst- the 'War' on Drug. They are proponents for a strong public education and feel that highly qualified teachers make our children learn better than standardized tests. Say this candidate fits or comes awfully darn close to all the values you have.

And lets say all the other democratic/progressive candidates aren't even close when it comes to your progressive values.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Say this candidate is also 100lbs overweight.

Would you vote for this candidate?

It's not about Christie's weight - it's about the fact he's a right-wing nutjob who would ruin this country. Shave 150+ lbs (give or take) off of Chris Christie's frame and he's still a bad candidate.

[MineralMan]

1. I never vote for hypothetical candidates...only for real ones.

But weight would not be one of my deciding issues.

[vi5]

2. I understand what you're saying....

But the fact is that there are any number of ridiculous things that people base their votes on and which persuade or dissuade them from voting for a candidate. Some of these are just natural inclinations, but others are ginned up by or have the fires stoked by the media.

We'd be hearing similar concerns if the person were not overweight but still had diabetes. Or if they weren't overweight but had severe asthma. Or if they weren't overweight but had epilepsy. Or if they weren't overweight but had hepititis. Or any number of other physical issues of concern.

The fact is that Christie isn't just a bit overweight and people are being picky. He is very overweight and very unhealthy and that is the root of what would be the issue. Yes, he's a horrible candidate. But good or bad candidate, Republican or Democrat, people are going to be concerned about the issue whether we like it or not.

I'm hardly svelt myself, but the notion that someone who is physically like Christie is healthy and not at all of any concern is just not a realistic assesement.

Yes, if what you'e talking about are gratuitous uses of his weight as a source of insult then sure. You are right, it's not productive and it's insulting and it's bad. But if what you're talking about is a discussion of whether or not people would vote for someone who had the same physical issues Christie has, then I don't think that's out of bounds as a discussion, as long as it stays reasonable and not insulting.

[Hepburn]

3. I would agree...

...IMO, Christie is what I would call "morbidly obese." And that phrase is exactly what it seems. IF (huge "if") I agreed with his political positions, I would still have very strong concerns about whether with the stress of being POTUS he could survive. In other words, "dead man walking."

[LynneSin]

8. You're not separating health from political values

If Chris Christie was a progressive democrat whose values closely mirrored yours - would you vote for him?

I know everyone means well but honestly, it's offensive when people say 'he's too fat to run'

No he's not he's as qualified as everyone else to run. And remember about 1.2million people in New Jersey overlooked his weight issue and voted for him - and that's a state that tends to elect democrats (mind you it was an off-year election in 2009). Oh and New Jersey folks tend to be very body conscious, probably because half their state is along the coastline - gotta look good for summer.

[vi5]

20. Again, what are you talking about here?

Are you talking about people saying he's "too fat too run"? Or are you talking about whether any person who raises this question or even considers it as an issue is out of line.

Again, if he agreed with my values but was an unhealthy person in general (which I'm sorry, Christie is and most of it is related to his weight) then yeah it would be a factor. Would I vote for them against a Republican? Sure. Obviously. But would their health be a factor if I had 2 Democratic candidates in front of me with identical positions on every issue? Yes it would. And again I'm someone who is overweight and has medical issues because of it.

We entertain all aspects of "electibility" every day here on DU and in life in general. And whether we like it or not, weight and/or health are factors in electibility. I'm not sure why that should be off limits for discussion but everything else shouldn't.

[seabeyond]

4. agree lynnsin. i am kinda surprised by people throwing others away for prejudice

but it is hard for me to understand the thinking.

lots of validations and justifications. but really doesnt work for me.

[vi5]

5. How is "throwing others away"

to simply have a dialogue about the ways in which it could affect their job?

Would you think that it should not be discussed or mentioned if a candidate has epilepsy (full disclosure, I'm an epileptic and I'm overweight)?
What about if they have severe asthma? Or extremely high blood pressure? Or heart issues?

As I said in my earlier post I don't agree with people just using his weight as a point of mockery or insult. But I also don't think that it's an off-limit topic or cause for concern just as any number of issues would be.

[seabeyond]

7. people are beyond discussing it and simply saying they would not vote for someone overweight

you may suggest talking about what could happen is valid.

kerry had cancer previously and we still voted for him and i would today. even though, he may die

kennedy was ill also. so we should not elect him cause of what might happen? and lookie, he died anyway and had nothing to do with the illness.

yes... throwing a person away because of a dislike for obsesity, regardless of what he has to offer.

the solution... for the thinking outside the box people, would be to ensure we have a VP that can fulfill the role in case anything happens to the pres. like... getting shot.

[Ichingcarpenter]

6. He's not overweight he is obese lets not hedge definitions

according to all medical definitions.


http://www.halls.md/ideal-weight/body.htm

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Obesity/Pages/Causes.aspx


President Taft was the same height and nearly the same weight.
Taft's size impressed some people, but often made him the butt of jokes . Judged solely by body mass index, a 5-foot 11-inch person weighing more than 290 pounds is severely obese.


http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez/g27.htm




The Presidency of William Taft
The Heir to the Progressive Throne and Republican Alienation



Theodore Roosevelt's plan to place William Taft into the Presidency as a hand-picked successor did not turn out as well as he had hoped, as Taft had a mind of his own.
After William Howard Taft (1857-1930) won the 1908 election against three-time losing candidate William Jennings Bryan (321 electoral votes to 162), he took over the Presidency from Theodore Roosevelt, fully intent on continuing his predecessors "progressive" agenda.

Reform Legislation
William Taft was not primarily focused on creating legislation while in office. As a former (and future) judge, he interpreted the office of the Presidency as much more of an administrator than a legislator.

As an administrator, Taft did much to reform the civil service, and acted to increase the size and scope of government nationally. He added more than fifty thousand jobs to the civil service (including post masters and naval workers), he increased the scope of the ICC (Interstate Commerce Commission) in order to allow them to set rates for railroads, and he ushered through the passage of the 16th Constitutional amendment, which allowed for the institution of a national income tax.




Antitrust Suits
While Presidents Roosevelt and McKinley had both spoken out against the rise of trusts in the United States and the harm that they appeared to be doing to employees and smaller businesses, Taft actually took action against them.

In fact, Taft's action against Trusts could be summed up by Roosevelt's famous statement regarding foreign policy - "Speak softly and carry a big stick." He did rail against the evils of big business, but rather used his vast knowledge of the law to his benefit, filing 90 antitrust suits against various companies, including the largest company of them all - U.S. Steel.

While progressives should have been pleased by this action against the evils of corporate trusts, this is not so. Many in the progressive wing of the republican party saw Taft as having stepped on the toes of others by taking such action - in effect, he had made other progressives look bad.



Read more at Suite101: The Presidency of William Taft: The Heir to the Progressive Throne and Republican Alienation | Suite101.com http://isaacmmcphee.suite101.com/the-presidency-of-william-taft-a54453#ixzz1ZLuRXPM8


Chrise is no Taft and is one of Koch brother's Fat Cats and does their biddings.

[LynneSin]

9. I'm not here to support Christie

I'm here to support overweight people that we can run for office and in the case of Christie - win them. But Christie is a bad candidate for another reason - his ideology sucks so let's focus on what's important.

[Ineeda]

13. Underweight, overweight, too short, not enough hair, dog-face ugly --

all could be superficial factors in electability. However, none of those things should make a difference. Morbid obesity, though, is an attribute that is genuinely risky. Death is only one possibility. To paraphrase another poster, overweight is one thing -- morbidly obese is another matter. Would you want your president to play Russian Roulette? Or jump out of an airplane without knowing he/she had a parachute?

[LynneSin]

18. The guy won the governorship is one of the more populous states in the US

and one that leans democrat.

If a morbidly obese candidate was the best candidate for our country I would vote for them in a heartbeat ESPECIALLY if my other choice was a healthy candidate who wants to give everything to their wealthy donors and kill the middle class.

Anyhow, if we were so worried about health then why did we all vote for a man who smokes? I mean I lost my father when he was 41 years old when it comes to smoking. Personally that habit is just as unhealthy as being overweight.

[Ineeda]

19. Hey, you're talking to an overweight smoker

(not morbidly obese, though) but I'm never going to run for president! Obama may have been a smoker, but he sure as hell seems very fit to me, despite that. And his ideology suited mine. So to the gist of your premise, I too, would vote for the obese candidate over the wrong-for-the-job person. Also in a heartbeat. But I'd worry about the impact of stress.

[LynneSin]

22. Just so you know my dad was extremely healthy and fit too

and he dropped dead within 4 months of diagnosis.

And it's not whether or not you have run for president it's the fact that if you want to go for it. But let's focus on the real issues at hand which is Christie is a bad candidate because his politics are very mis-aligned.

[vi5]

21. If you do have some links....

To people who say "I would not vote for someone who is overweight" then by all means I'd like to see them because that is wrong.

But if you're taking people saying "His weight will be a factor." or "His weight will be a concern to people" or things of that nature then I'm sorry that's just the nature of our electoral politics in America and also everything we all do day in and day out. Sure we all wish it wasn't, but that's not the world we live in. So people pointing out that it will be a factor and that people will judge him on this is a long way from "I would never vote for someone just because they are overweight."

People raised the smoking issue. It was brought up and discussed on many occassions.

Again, I'm overweight and I"m a former smoker. But I'm sorry, I'm not going to say that this condition is healthy, or that it's optimal, or that it doesn't preclude me from many things, or that it's also not within my control to change it should I be able to muster up the will power, the time, and the lifestyle to be able to do so.

[Overseas]

10. People say Dennis Kucinich's looks are an impediment

And the big PR campaign that said his having said he saw a flying object that could not be identified meant that he was a nut who believes in UFOs.

And the darn Department of Peace could interfere with the war profiteering that has become such a mainstay of our economy.

[HopeHoops]

11. Yes, your point is good - give him Obama's figure and he still sucks as a candidate.

But I think overweight IS an issue just as age is. I'd say he has way over 150lbs to shed to even be close to in the safe zone from a health perspective, but what about Lloyd Benson? He was in fine shape but getting on in age and that was a MAJOR talking point for the GOP back then. Funny that they didn't bring it up with McGrumpy. If the top of the ticket is in questionable physical shape, that puts too much importance on the VP choice - Palin? Really? :rofl:

[woodsprite]

12. If he supported the things important to the middle class, yes

BUT I'd want to make sure he had a strong VP, just in case.

[dembotoz]

14. hell, i would vote for jabba the hut if he was progressive.....

[Proud Public Servant]

15. Honestly, it would give me pause

If there were a candidate who voted like Paul Wellstone and looked like Jabba the Hutt, I'd be pretty thrilled with the voting record. But, as someone who struggles with my own weight (nowhere near Christie/Taft levels, but still), I know that being that big bespeaks something wrong -- a lack of impulse control, most likely (and see here the most overweight president of the last 100 years, Bill Clinton). I'd vote for such a candidate anyway, but I'd feel uneasy about it.

[bikebloke]

16. Creosote Christie

All it would take is one wafer thin mint.

[KamaAina]

17. I mentioned NY's Jerry Nadler in Christie Weight Thread #8,237 yesterday

I'd be down with that -- but you know perfectly well that Faux would instantly turn into The Weight Loss Channel. :eyes: