Micheal Kinsley knows he is being a bigot when he writes, "Look, I'm sorry, but New Jersey Governor Chris Christie cannot be president: He is just too fat." He quickly folllows on that he knows it's illiberal to judge people on such a basis, and that he forgives President Obama for smoking, and President Clinton for serial adultery. But he can't get over Christie's fat thing.
Kinsey readers are waiting for an explanation of why? Why is this flaw different that those other forgivable imperfections?
Clinton's adultery had victims–from his wife and daughter to his willing but obviously exploited young partner, Monica Lewinsky. Those who think government should control everything because of health care costs–which I'd argue is a reason to get government out of health care, not an excuse for micromanaging every personal decision Americans make–would have to stretch to show that being grossly obese is more costly than smoking (and I just bet that more thorough analysis would show that to the extent obesity, like smoking, cuts old age, it's actually a win from the federal treasury's perspective).
Kinsey suggests that controlling what you eat is easier than other additions, and therefore is less forgivable. He also sees Christie's girth as a terrible symbol for America today, since our appetite (for government spending presumably?) has gotten out of control.
This seems rather weak. And personally I'd far prefer a fat guy who has actually cut government spending and moved toward balancing government's budget than a skinny arugula eater who spends our country into oblivion.
Kinsey accomplishes nothing in his piece to convince us that the idea that Christie is just too fat for public office is anything but petty prejudice.