Christie: did he know?

[b_dubb]

It's like you can watch people revise history right before your eyes!!!!

[FightTheFuture]

So? It still took until only recently to determine the attackers weren't Al Qaeda. What was this real time video feed supposed to reveal about who was attacking and what their motivations were as it happened? What was a drone supposed to accomplish?
Susan Rice repeated CIA intelligence after an attack on a consulate. The horrors.
There's already been twelve hearings. What's known is a pretty complete picture, which is more complicated than the Republican sound bytes, with blame shared by them as well.

Do you understand how difficult it is to zero in an 82mm mortar with only 2 rounds? Those were well-trained terrorists, my friend. Terrorists which, quite probably, had AQ affiliation. And they sure as heck weren`t concerned about any silly video. Furthermore, Obama and his minions, all know it. They HAVE to know it, because not even THEY can be so utterly clueless.

We all know -- as a matter of FACT -- there were no protests, no crowds, no demonstration on the day of the attack. We also know, there had been a number of attacks prior to 9/11/12. These were coordinated attacks that drove the British away. Did they, the other attackers, see the silly little video, too?

There is a lot more to this story that has yet to be heard by the public. You can thank your Dear Leader for that, and the almost insurmountable stonewalling.

Can`t wait to Read Bob Gates` book.

[b_dubb]

We all know -- as a matter of FACT -- there were no protests, no crowds, no demonstration on the day of the attack. We also know, there had been a number of attacks prior to 9/11/12. These were coordinated attacks that drove the British away. Did they, the other attackers, see the silly little video, too?

How do you know this? Where'd you get your information from?

This kind of shit reminds me of that bullshit investigation into Clinton that produced a stain on a blue dress.  You rabid Conservatives are just pissed that your party is in disarray and can't get it's shit together.  You don't give a fuck about justice or truth.  You just want to tear down the opposition and you'll do it anyway you can.  I'd be willing to listen to a sound, reasoned argument.  Instead you flail about like an apoplectic shouting aspersions.  What the fuck is your point anyway?  This is some vast left wing conspiracy to destroy America?  You might need anti-psychotics.

Please note this anti-Obama tirade has somehow found it's way into a thread about Gov Christie's Bridgegate.  I rest my case.

[FightTheFuture]

How do you know this? Where'd you get your information from?

From EYE-FUCKING-WITNESSES, you odious halfwit!

Benghazi witness: 'The YouTube event was a non-event in Libya'

And there`s this from the AP, VIA The Sate Dept.:


New details of Sept. 11 consulate attack in Libya
By Bradley Klapper, The Associated Press
October 9, 2012
Updated: 8:10 p.m.

WASHINGTON (AP) Senior State Department officials provided a more detailed picture Tuesday of the consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. A look at how they say the attack took place:

Sept. 10-11, 2012

Stevens arrives in Benghazi and holds meetings on and off the consulate grounds on Sept. 10. He spends the night, and for the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. holds meetings only inside the compound. It is an enclosed area about 300 yards long by 100 yards wide, with a 9-foot outer wall topped by barbed wire and augmented by barriers, steel drop bars and other security upgrades. There are four buildings in the compound. Five diplomatic security officers are present, along with four members of a local militia deployed by Libya’s government to provide added security.




Around 8:30 p.m.

Stevens finishes his final meeting of the day and escorts a Turkish diplomat outside the main entrance of the consulate. The situation is calm. There are no protests. (emphasis mine)

Around 9:40 p.m.

Agents hear loud noises, gunfire and explosions near the front gate. A barracks at the entrance housing the local militiamen is burnt down. Agents viewing cameras see large group of armed men flowing into the compound. Alarm is sounded. Telephone calls are made to the embassy in Tripoli, officials in Washington, the Libyan authorities and a U.S. quick reaction force located at a second compound a little over a mile away

[PB the Deplorable]

...  Which one of your descriptions, given above, do you find morally more offensive than someone who willingly fucked his constituents in the ass out of spite for a political opponent?

And before you try to tuck your head into the armpit of comparing which caused more grief, we are talking (by your choice) which action should be subject to more moral outrage.  My view is that someone who fucks up due to lack of competence has a superior moral claim to someone who fucks up because he's an asshole that is trying to hurt people (again, just taking what you've presented as truisms about Obama at face value).  You might feel otherwise, and that's okay.  The world needs people who ditch their morality to gain advantage in a petty Internet argument.  They're the bad example in a teaching moment for the rest of humanity.

Back to the 'shutting down of the government'  - which Obama used as an excuse to make things as difficult as possible for average Americans for no real reason.

Not only did our America hating President 'close' the open air monuments and memorials in DC to aging vets, he closed access to our National Parks.  In addition to a number of other moves designed to make things as inconvenient as possible.

Surely you remember this?


Some of the parks have highways that run through them, and it can be hundreds of miles to use alternative routes around them as some are in remote mountainous areas.  So Obama allowed a few rangers to remain to patrol the highways - they were told the only thing they were to do was make sure no one was stopping anywhere in the park to admire the view. 

At the risk of being accused of rewriting history, I would offer that this is just as vindictive and mean-spirited as the very stupid antics Christie was doing.  The little prick really showed America who was boss with that one, didn't he?  'You are to look straight ahead, no stopping, no photos'.  One does not climb through the ranks to the top of the Daily Machine without excelling in the smallest of petty vindictiveness.

Can you imagine any of our other Presidents being this small?


I know you'd want to be made aware if this since you are very against mean-spirited vindictiveness.   I imagine you'll now probably want to take down your shrine and scrape those 'Obama Is My Savior' bumper stickers off your car.  Unless it only counts when a Republican is doing it.

[jazmunda]

I know nothing about this issue except that Christie should have ordered his staff to close the fridge not the bridge.

[b_dubb]

Benghazi witness: 'The YouTube event was a non-event in Libya'

There's clearly no way I can refute a sixty second sound bite taken out context

I can post links too

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/opinion/the-facts-about-benghazi.html?_r=0

I know nothing about this issue except that Christie should have ordered his staff to close the fridge not the bridge.

Quit your day job. A career in comedy awaits.

[analog kid]

From EYE-FUCKING-WITNESSES, you odious halfwit!

We all know -- as a matter of FACT -- there were no protests, no crowds, no demonstration on the day of the attack. 

That isn't what the guy stated in your citation. There was a few seconds of him saying he didn't report on it.

I'd also like to point out that, when the pastor in Florida burned the Korans a few of years ago, there were riots over it elsewhere internationally and a number of people were killed. The cartoonist who depicted Muhammad also caused rights where there were fatalities. So the point that's been fixated on about how a riot over a video insulting Islam would be some kind of preposterous notion, and evidence of a deliberate lie as a coverup, isn't really that salient.

The former head of the CIA under Bush is on record as saying that, how the information after the Benghazi attack was released, is how one would expect it to happen, and that the people who see conspiracy in it have a "cartoonish" (his own word) view of what transpired.

Add to that the fact that the specific reason for the controversy on Benghazi depends on who you talk to, began with wild conspiracy theories that have since been abandoned by most, and took the right almost a year to settle on which angle they were going to run with. Why is Benghazi a bigger scandal than Watergate and Iran-Contra combined, far worse than the 12 other attacks on consulates since 2001? Because a guy is in office with a D behind his name?

[NowhereInTime]

he tried to in syria over the gas attacks. putin put an end to it by threatening to retaliate. much like Kennedy did during the cuban missile crisis.

Absolute fiction.  Is it really your position that Shirtless Vlad single handedly stopped Barry from launching an invasion of Syria? It wasn't Congress, our allies,  or ourselves who said "stay out" but Putin? It's obvious even Barry had no desire to be involved but it sure was not Putin.

the only real job obama ever held was selling pot.
Classic conservative snark and misses the point entirely.



how about overthrow govts which led directly to american deaths via those he supported with weapons and cash? yea libya and benghazi ...  gaddafi was no saint, but at least he kept the religious zealots in place if nothing else.no one was keeping them in check after we tossed out gaddafi.

You cannot seriously be advocating leaving the terrorist who bombed Pan Am 103 and several service personnel in Germany as a superior alternative to even where Libya is now. Civil strife existed under Qaddafi; why do you think there was an insurrection in the first place?

you mean like fast and furious, and the weapons used to kill american citizens (and god knows how many innocent mexican citizens)? yea lets sell weapons to the mexican drug cartels, even though we are in a "war on drugs".this would be an impeachable offense

This,  though poorly executed, was at least an attempt at law enforcement.  Your argument for Iran-Contra?

name calling is for those who have no real argument to the opinion, or simply want to troll.

Yet it happens when conservatives can't defend their folly.

as far as christie goes, he is a politician. he will say whatever to further his agenda. whether he knew or not, his answer would be what he said.
the old saying applies : how do you know if a politician is lying? their lips are moving.

[bateman]

Uh oh, Chris.

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2014/01/14/christie-official-who-arranged-bridge-closures-together-during-fiasco/

[West of the Rockies]

I am pretty much of the opinion that this affair could now deflate whatever sort of political career Christie had/has.  I don't believe he would have probably been the '16 primary winner (though he seems to be the most electable in the general to me from among possible Republican candidates). 

I think that a big unspoken aspect of why he would lose in '16 is ultimately his weight.  I think Americans now want a president who is at least a little photogenic.  Okay, so McCain looked like everybody's grandfather, but he at least had that distinguished military career that pointed to a very fit and, if you will, photogenic history.  Christie is sort of a modern William Howard Taft.  I think that at least some voters would be so shallow as to not vote for him because of his weight.  (Perhaps the same way that some voters would not vote for Obama because of his skin color or Romney because of his religion.)  A lot of people read all sorts of things into such things as weight, appearance, religion...  I have met a lot of people who are extremely wary of Mormonism and who consider it to be a cult.  Such people would perhaps doubt Romney's intellectual prowess; after all, he is a member of a "cult" religion they might say.

I suspect some people would look at Christie's weight as a sign of a lack of discipline, gluttony....

In particular, a female politician has to pay a lot more attention to her physical appearance.  Perhaps this is why a photogenic politician like Palin or even Bachmann might be taken a bit more seriously by our sound-byte media machine than are less attractive politicians.  Christine O'Donnell was perhaps regarded as "an interesting candidate" at first based upon her looks.  She clearly was also a TPer in a state where conservatives had grown discontent with their Republican incumbent.  In the general election, her appearance no longer helped her; too much witchy weirdness and a clear lack of knowledge derailed her neophyte aspirations.

Anyway, there is my cracker barrell assessment of things on this fine day....

[Yorkshire pud]

I am pretty much of the opinion that this affair could now deflate whatever sort of political career Christie had/has.  I don't believe he would have probably been the '16 primary winner (though he seems to be the most electable in the general to me from among possible Republican candidates). 

I think that a big unspoken aspect of why he would lose in '16 is ultimately his weight.  I think Americans now want a president who is at least a little photogenic.  Okay, so McCain looked like everybody's grandfather, but he at least had that distinguished military career that pointed to a very fit and, if you will, photogenic history.  Christie is sort of a modern William Howard Taft.  I think that at least some voters would be so shallow as to not vote for him because of his weight.  (Perhaps the same way that some voters would not vote for Obama because of his skin color or Romney because of his religion.)  A lot of people read all sorts of things into such things as weight, appearance, religion...  I have met a lot of people who are extremely wary of Mormonism and who consider it to be a cult.  Such people would perhaps doubt Romney's intellectual prowess; after all, he is a member of a "cult" religion they might say.

I suspect some people would look at Christie's weight as a sign of a lack of discipline, gluttony....

In particular, a female politician has to pay a lot more attention to her physical appearance.  Perhaps this is why a photogenic politician like Palin or even Bachmann might be taken a bit more seriously by our sound-byte media machine than are less attractive politicians.  Christine O'Donnell was perhaps regarded as "an interesting candidate" at first based upon her looks.  She clearly was also a TPer in a state where conservatives had grown discontent with their Republican incumbent.  In the general election, her appearance no longer helped her; too much witchy weirdness and a clear lack of knowledge derailed her neophyte aspirations.

Anyway, there is my cracker barrell assessment of things on this fine day....

I think you make very valid points buddy. Wasn't JFK the first President who used the charm offensive over there? Over here, (since about the 90's) our political leaders have tried to model themselves on his methods. They all use the same hand gestures (never point, always use back of the hand facing the audience), all self effacing, ALL slim. It was revealed this week that the top three in the cabinet have paid £10000 on acting lessons. All have much to say, but little to impart.

You may have heard of Mo Mowlem? She was in Bliars cabinet, but something of a rebel within it; she was very much her own woman, never one to toe the line, but universally loved by all. She was the Secretary for Northern Ireland and was fundamental in pushing through the peace agreements between the Loyalists and Republicans. She wasn't a beauty queen by any stretch, but god she had a sexiness that came through in her sheer ability and drive. Tragically she died due to a brain tumour, but before that she carried on with her task until it all got too much for her. If it's ever shown in the US, watch the drama that was shown on the TV here. Mo played by the unimpeachable Juile Walters.

These days image is everything in politics; maybe that's why we don't get any people of substance? This Christie guy it seems has neither integrity or image!

[PB the Deplorable]

... She was the Secretary for Northern Ireland and was fundamental in pushing through the peace agreements between the Loyalists and Republicans....

Wait, what?  Bill Clinton claimed credit for this

[Yorkshire pud]

Wait, what?  Bill Clinton claimed credit for this

He helped no doubt PB, as did quite a few foreigners, but Mo Mowlem was the one who did the graft-Blair tried to take her credit too! But I detest that bastard anyway.

[FightTheFuture]

That isn't what the guy stated in your citation. There was a few seconds of him saying he didn't report on it.

I'd also like to point out that, when the pastor in Florida burned the Korans a few of years ago, there were riots over it elsewhere internationally and a number of people were killed. The cartoonist who depicted Muhammad also caused rights where there were fatalities. So the point that's been fixated on about how a riot over a video insulting Islam would be some kind of preposterous notion, and evidence of a deliberate lie as a coverup, isn't really that salient.

The former head of the CIA under Bush is on record as saying that, how the information after the Benghazi attack was released, is how one would expect it to happen, and thtoat the people who see conspiracy in it have a "cartoonish" (his own word) view of what transpired.

Add to that the fact that the specific reason for the controversy on Benghazi depends on who you talk to, began with wild conspiracy theories that have since been abandoned by most, and took the right almost a year to settle on which angle they were going to run with. Why is Benghazi a bigger scandal than Watergate and Iran-Contra combined, far worse than the 12 other attacks

on consulates since 2001? Because a guy is in office with a D behind his name?

Just a little update to this thread. We have just learned, from  declassified documents, that what I was saying is, of course, exactly correct.

Gen. Carter Ham, USAFRICOM, briefed the President on DAY ONE, that the attack on the compound in Benghazi was, indeed a terrorist attack. Further, he stated there there was no demonstration at all. 

[Yorkshire pud]

Meanwhile back on topic:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25734919

Meanwhile, federal officials are also looking into whether Mr Christie misused federal funds allocated for relief from a powerful 2012 storm to produce tourism adverts starring himself and his family.

[analog kid]

Just a little update to this thread. We have just learned, from  declassified documents, that what I was saying is, of course, exactly correct.

Gen. Carter Ham, USAFRICOM, briefed the President on DAY ONE, that the attack on the compound in Benghazi was, indeed a terrorist attack. Further, he stated there there was no demonstration at all.

I'm guessing you're referring to the "Top Secret" documents Fox News obtained, as reported by The Daily Fail. How did the military know what was transpiring as it happened if we're still learning knew information a year later? Do they explain that?

[b_dubb]

Just a little update to this thread. We have just learned, from  declassified documents, that what I was saying is, of course, exactly correct.

Gen. Carter Ham, USAFRICOM, briefed the President on DAY ONE, that the attack on the compound in Benghazi was, indeed a terrorist attack. Further, he stated there there was no demonstration at all.

Why are you posting this nonsense in a thread about Christie's BridgeGate?

[wr250]

Why are you posting this nonsense in a thread about Christie's BridgeGate?

cause this is bellgab isle, and thats what we do

[FightTheFuture]

I'm guessing you're referring to the "Top Secret" documents Fox News obtained, as reported by The Daily Fail. How did the military know what was transpiring as it happened if we're still learning knew information a year later? Do they explain that?

You know, Analog, perherps it's time to consider going digital.

[Yorkshire pud]

You know, Analog, perherps it's time to consider going digital.

On no, another one who thinks 101010 is better than _____________________________________________________ a myth sold well.

[West of the Rockies]

Science Fiction geek that I am, I secretly hoped Analog Kid referred to a fondness for that great old magazine (that is still in print, by the way).

[NowhereInTime]

From EYE-FUCKING-WITNESSES, you odious halfwit!

Benghazi witness: 'The YouTube event was a non-event in Libya'

And there`s this from the AP, VIA The Sate Dept.:


New details of Sept. 11 consulate attack in Libya
By Bradley Klapper, The Associated Press
October 9, 2012
Updated: 8:10 p.m.

WASHINGTON (AP) Senior State Department officials provided a more detailed picture Tuesday of the consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. A look at how they say the attack took place:

Sept. 10-11, 2012

Stevens arrives in Benghazi and holds meetings on and off the consulate grounds on Sept. 10. He spends the night, and for the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. holds meetings only inside the compound. It is an enclosed area about 300 yards long by 100 yards wide, with a 9-foot outer wall topped by barbed wire and augmented by barriers, steel drop bars and other security upgrades. There are four buildings in the compound. Five diplomatic security officers are present, along with four members of a local militia deployed by Libya’s government to provide added security.




Around 8:30 p.m.

Stevens finishes his final meeting of the day and escorts a Turkish diplomat outside the main entrance of the consulate. The situation is calm. There are no protests. (emphasis mine)

Around 9:40 p.m.

Agents hear loud noises, gunfire and explosions near the front gate. A barracks at the entrance housing the local militiamen is burnt down. Agents viewing cameras see large group of armed men flowing into the compound. Alarm is sounded. Telephone calls are made to the embassy in Tripoli, officials in Washington, the Libyan authorities and a U.S. quick reaction force located at a second compound a little over a mile away

Sad affair, but not the smoking gun scandal conservatives were praying for:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/world/middleeast/senate-report-finds-benghazi-attack-was-preventable.html

Not to mention that, again, for the record, there were no "assets" in the area to step in and no one was ordered to "stand down" while Barry slept.

[analog kid]

Science Fiction geek that I am, I secretly hoped Analog Kid referred to a fondness for that great old magazine (that is still in print, by the way).

I used to subscribe and wish I still did, but the lame user name is just a Rush song I was listening to. I have a storied past of lame user names.

[West of the Rockies]

Don't know if you're a library-goer, but our local branch carries Analog and Asimov's Sci-Fi magazine.  Can't beat free!

[analog kid]

It's been a while. We subscribed to both of those at one time.

[UnscreenedCaller]

I am pretty much of the opinion that this affair could now deflate whatever sort of political career Christie had/has.  I don't believe he would have probably been the '16 primary winner (though he seems to be the most electable in the general to me from among possible Republican candidates). 

I think that a big unspoken aspect of why he would lose in '16 is ultimately his weight.  I think Americans now want a president who is at least a little photogenic.  Okay, so McCain looked like everybody's grandfather, but he at least had that distinguished military career that pointed to a very fit and, if you will, photogenic history.  Christie is sort of a modern William Howard Taft.  I think that at least some voters would be so shallow as to not vote for him because of his weight.  (Perhaps the same way that some voters would not vote for Obama because of his skin color or Romney because of his religion.)  A lot of people read all sorts of things into such things as weight, appearance, religion...  I have met a lot of people who are extremely wary of Mormonism and who consider it to be a cult.  Such people would perhaps doubt Romney's intellectual prowess; after all, he is a member of a "cult" religion they might say.

I suspect some people would look at Christie's weight as a sign of a lack of discipline, gluttony....

In particular, a female politician has to pay a lot more attention to her physical appearance.  Perhaps this is why a photogenic politician like Palin or even Bachmann might be taken a bit more seriously by our sound-byte media machine than are less attractive politicians.  Christine O'Donnell was perhaps regarded as "an interesting candidate" at first based upon her looks.  She clearly was also a TPer in a state where conservatives had grown discontent with their Republican incumbent.  In the general election, her appearance no longer helped her; too much witchy weirdness and a clear lack of knowledge derailed her neophyte aspirations.

Anyway, there is my cracker barrell assessment of things on this fine day....

The AM call-in drive in radio program I listen to discussed a Christie run for the presidency last year, posing the question of whether his weight would affect any campaign. I thought it an interesting question, and offered Taft as an example of a corpulent president, a precedent for Christie. But the counter also made a lot of sense: Taft was elected before television, and well before photogenic presidents, so his election is a moot point. In the 19th century, even though Taft was morbidly obese by any standards, it was considered a sign of wealth to sporting a belly, a visible reminder that the person can afford to eat well. Today, it's taken as a sign of personal weakness and subject to ridicule. For Clinton's entire presidency, David Letterman had an ongoing segment where he'd show Clinton jogging after a pork chop on a stick. I can only imagine what he and other comedians would do with Christie.

We like our presidents to be a certain way in this country. We like little wiry, feisty Harry Truman, or old but strong Ronald Reagan riding a horse on his ranch, or Dubya jogging. It's the virile male image, packaged and sold to a tv watching America. FDR had to hide his disability from the American public to keep up confidence. Frankly, given the current American obsession with looks, it would be nothing short of a miracle if Christie, before the bridge scandal, got the nomination from his party, not only because of the enemies he has on both sides of the spectrum, but because his weight is an unresolved issue, for many a sign of personal weakness and for others worrisome because of associated health issues. But, I also think that while Palin might have torpedoed McCain's career, it wasn't unreasonable that worry about a recurrence of his melanoma would also affect the outcome of the 2008 election, and so it's not unreasonable to be concerned with Christie's ability to physically withstand the rigors of the job.

The scrutiny of women politicians is often subtler and nastier. That often comes down to an endless round of sniping about looks, as though looks and competency are in any way connected.

And that's my female persuasion two cents.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

for others worrisome because of associated health issues.

This is my concern about his weight.  I'm less worried about the image aspect, although I agree with you that is a concern for some.  Now that America has broken the monopoly on white guys being President, I'd like to see a trend towards merit over image follow when it comes to opportunity.  I'm not endorsing Christie here, just saying that I hope that we can move towards picking people of substance over media stars for our leaders.  Around the time that monkeys will fly out of my butt.

The scrutiny of women politicians is often subtler and nastier. That often comes down to an endless round of sniping about looks, as though looks and competency are in any way connected.

I equate women's problems with black people's problems in some respects.  I don't think that white people can uplift the black community, nor do I think that they should be the ones leading the charge in place of black people (although they can contribute their help and cooperation).  In an analogous sense, women have to be the ones to fix the problem about image verses substance with women. 

Go to any magazine rack and take a look at the magazines that talk about women's image and fashion and so forth.  They're all magazines about women, by women.  No heterosexual male ever so much as opens one of these rags.  They're all about glorification of image...the ultimate goal of any woman not being the boardroom or the senate or the Presidency, but being the hottest chick in the room at some stupid party or some other gathering.  This is coming from WOMEN. 

Chancellor Merkel is one of the five most powerful people in the world, and the most powerful woman.  Until she and women like her reach the same level of esteem amongst women as the fuckin Kardashian whores and that worthless cockslut Miley Cyrus, women have no one but themselves to blame.

[UnscreenedCaller]

Go to any magazine rack and take a look at the magazines that talk about women's image and fashion and so forth.  They're all magazines about women, by women.  No heterosexual male ever so much as opens one of these rags.  They're all about glorification of image...the ultimate goal of any woman not being the boardroom or the senate or the Presidency, but being the hottest chick in the room at some stupid party or some other gathering.  This is coming from WOMEN. 

Chancellor Merkel is one of the five most powerful people in the world, and the most powerful woman.  Until she and women like her reach the same level of esteem amongst women as the fuckin Kardashian whores and that worthless cockslut Miley Cyrus, women have no one but themselves to blame.

I take your point, although I was talking more about the print and television media and political news. But the women's magazines are owned by corporations like Conde Nast, which finance what they want to finance and what sells. Unfortunately, as you say, we do buy into it more than we realize, because for every article on books or self-actualization, there are 25 advertisements on how to be prettier, sexier, dress better and so on, all image, no substance. And it permeates life for females from birth to that time when we're no longer considered attractive or worth pursuing.

Two years ago at the beginning of school, I asked my class what they wanted to learn that year. Seven girls wanted to learn to be princesses. That gave me pause.

[analog kid]

The AM call-in drive in radio program I listen to discussed a Christie run for the presidency last year, posing the question of whether his weight would affect any campaign. I thought it an interesting question, and offered Taft as an example of a corpulent president, a precedent for Christie. But the counter also made a lot of sense: Taft was elected before television, and well before photogenic presidents, so his election is a moot point. In the 19th century, even though Taft was morbidly obese by any standards, it was considered a sign of wealth to sporting a belly, a visible reminder that the person can afford to eat well. Today, it's taken as a sign of personal weakness and subject to ridicule. For Clinton's entire presidency, David Letterman had an ongoing segment where he'd show Clinton jogging after a pork chop on a stick. I can only imagine what he and other comedians would do with Christie.

Like the JFK / Nixon debate of 1960. Those who listened to the debate on the radio thought Nixon won, while those who watched it televised thought Kennedy did, supposedly basing their opinion on Nixon appearing disheveled and "sweaty."