It didn’t take Democrats long to get in their shots at potential 2016 presidential candidate Chris Christie, suggesting within hours of the New Jersey governor’s landslide re-election that he will be an absentee leader who won on personality and the serendipity of Superstorm Sandy.

Apparently adding to the swipes was the cover of Time magazine’s latest issue, made public on Thursday, which depicts a silhouette of the hefty governor with the headline, “The Elephant in the Room,” a title perceived by some as a slight about Christie’s weight.

The political attack lines emerged soon after Christie’s victory speech on Tuesday night, in which the second-term governor said he would “never stop leading the state he loves.”

Top Democratic Party strategist David Axelrod was the first to chime in via Twitter, just minutes after Christie finished speaking: “But, pretty clearly, he's going to be LEAVING NJ quite a bit between now & '16.”

By Wednesday morning, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, hinted at the party’s primary attack line, saying Christie’s 22-point victory over Democrat Barbara Buono was the result of his charisma and the opportunity to respond to a natural disaster - the deadly 2012 superstorm that made a direct hit on New Jersey.

“You cannot attribute this to anything more than a big personality and the aftermath of the storm,” she said on one cable news show.

Wasserman Schultz also cited New Jersey’s 8.5 percent unemployment rate, an indication of how Democrats might continue to hammer away at Christie’s qualifications. Wasserman Shultz failed to point out that in neighboring New York state – led by Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo – the unemployment rate is actually higher, at 8.7 percent.

Time did not immediately return a message left by Fox News on Thursday about the cover. But according to a post on the magazine’s website, “the overarching themes of the package: Christie’s outsized influence in his party and the discomfort he causes some fellow Republicans who consider him, well, the elephant in the room.”

However, condemnation of the cover for its perceived weight insinuation came from across the political spectrum.

“Whether or not one likes Christie, these cheap shots – like Time’s new cover – about his weight are decidedly uncool,” New York Times reporter Steven Greenhouse posted on Twitter.

“You have to admit: that’s some dang good passive-aggressive, plausibly deniable fat-shaming, there,” RedState’s Moe Lane said.

Allen Steadhman, the director of the International Size Acceptance Association, which looks to combat discrimination against heavyset people and educate about health and weight, told Fox News the cover helps perpetuate backlash against people of large body sizes.

“It’s the cheapest route to get attention,” Steadham said. “They’re definitely making use of the word ‘elephant’ in a negative way that alludes to his weight.”

In Washington, by Wednesday afternoon Democrats were advancing Wasserman Schultz’s talking points, repeating the claim Christie won on personality and the emotional connection to his Sandy-recovery efforts.

They also raised doubts about whether Christie could sustain the energy of his big win, or transfer it to other GOP candidates. Some Democrats predicted he would follow the path of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who vaulted to national prominence for his handling of 9-11, but failed convert that popularity to success on the national campaign trail.

Christie won, “I think, yesterday based on the force of his personality … as well as an emotional connection to the Sandy relief,” Mo Elleithee, Democratic National Committee communications director, told reporters in a teleconference. “I don't think that is transferrable to the party or other candidates, nor is it sustainable.”

Elleithee alsodescribed Christie’s run as a “Giuliani boomlet” in which people say, “Oh here's a Republican who knows how to win in blue territory after, in part, some sort of an emotional connection to a national tragedy. It's not transferable and it's not sustainable."

New Jersey Democrats began complaining long before election night that Christie has already begun governing with an eye on the White House.

They suggested he vetoed an obscure bill on pig crates that was backed by animal rights activists because Iowa – home to the first election event in the presidential nominating process - is the country’s top hog-producing state.

Christie’s office said the governor thinks the State Board of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture can better develop and adopt such standards that balance farmers’ financial interests with the humane treatment of livestock.

But not all Democrats were willing to take shots at Christie, particularly not those in the Garden State who had endorsed him.

“I believe that if you have a dream and want to take a step forward that you have to accomplish the tasks before you. He will continue to lead New Jersey,” said Jersey City Councilman Michael Yun.“We want to share the benefits of his leadership with the rest of America,” he added.

 sebster wrote:
Why in the feth do people read articles like the one in the OP? It just reads like gossip.

 sebster wrote:
Why in the feth do people read articles like the one in the OP? It just reads like gossip.

 Jihadin wrote:
I like Chrisite though

 Manchu wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I like Chrisite though

So does the DNC. They left his opponent on her own as part of the 2016 strategy. It's thought Christie will help galvanize the Republican civil war that we saw throughout the shutdown crisis and then in exit polls here in VA.

 LordofHats wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Why in the feth do people read articles like the one in the OP? It just reads like gossip.

Because we're bored

 cincydooley wrote:
Because it's funny. You know, that the democrats are irritated that someone got voted to public office based on "charisma".

 Easy E wrote:
Yeah, I'm actually really exited to watch the Primary season for 2016 for botht eh Dems and Repubs.

What is kind of interesting, the NJ Republican Senator's that Christie endorsed and campaigned with were not re-elected/elected when Christie won. That means his coat tails in NJ might not be as long as he and his party would hope, and his election success might purely be personal charisma ans CincyDooley suggests.

 sebster wrote:
I was reading a website about cricket today, and in the build up to the Ashes (Austraia v England, the biggest series in the game) there was a really pointless article about the dietary requirements of the touring English side. First reply underneath said 'if this counts for news I think we better start the games soon' or something to that effect. Almost made me reconsider my policy on never reading the comments

 sebster wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Why in the feth do people read articles like the one in the OP? It just reads like gossip.

Because we're bored

Fair enough

I was reading a website about cricket today, and in the build up to the Ashes (Austraia v England, the biggest series in the game) there was a really pointless article about the dietary requirements of the touring English side. First reply underneath said 'if this counts for news I think we better start the games soon' or something to that effect. Almost made me reconsider my policy on never reading the comments


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:
Because it's funny. You know, that the democrats are irritated that someone got voted to public office based on "charisma".

When a politician wins an election, the other side of politics will attempt to phrase it as a one off, and not representative of a greater political tide. This is because perception of political momentum can actually become political momentum.

Alongside good old favourites like 'local issues' and 'our guy sucked', people often write off the win as just being due to other side's candidate being charismatic. Just as the Democrats are claiming this about Christie, Republicans did the same with Obama. The same was said about Clinton, and even about Saint Reagan.


Except it does. Thanks though!
You're little gotcha thing doesn't make any sense.

 Easy E wrote:
Yeah, I'm actually really exited to watch the Primary season for 2016 for botht eh Dems and Repubs.

What is kind of interesting, the NJ Republican Senator's that Christie endorsed and campaigned with were not re-elected/elected when Christie won. That means his coat tails in NJ might not be as long as he and his party would hope, and his election success might purely be personal charisma ans CincyDooley suggests.

 LordofHats wrote:
Some of the funniest things I've ever read have been in comments sections. Go stroll Wikipedia's talk pages. It's a gold mine of laughable stupidity

 cincydooley wrote:
Except it does. Thanks though!

 sebster wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Some of the funniest things I've ever read have been in comments sections. Go stroll Wikipedia's talk pages. It's a gold mine of laughable stupidity

It's like the guy who drops his pants for a dollar, first time you laugh, second time you cry, and then you never want to talk or think about that guy again, because that way lies madness and depression.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:
Except it does. Thanks though!

Seriously, that's it? I mean, normally you guys at least repeat your argument back, and pretend that's a rebuttal. This may be a new low.

 cincydooley wrote:

 sebster wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:
Except it does. Thanks though!

Seriously, that's it? I mean, normally you guys at least repeat your argument back, and pretend that's a rebuttal. This may be a new low.

Honestly, I won't be responding to you seriously ever again. I really should just put you on my banned list I can't stand you so much. So yes, that's it.

 cincydooley wrote:
I can't help but laugh at democrats criticizing an elected official that was elected due to "charisma". I HOPE they see the irony and that and wonder what it would take to CHANGE their opinions.

Hahahha.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I voted for Obama, consider myself a democrat, and I'll certainly be voting for Christie if he runs. I like the guy's attitude, and I think he'll be a good man of the people. I look forward to seeing him run.

 whembly wrote:
I'm wondering why the Dems would ever attack Christie at this stage...

Just sit back and let the Republicans beat the gak out of each other. That's partly the reason how Romney became the nominee.

“I think it is terrific that he is brash, that he is outspoken, and that he won his race,” Cruz said to reporters on Capitol Hill. “But I think we need more leaders in Washington with the courage to stand for principle” – meaning more tea party Republicans and less Christie Republicans. When asked whether Christie is a true conservative, Cruz walked away.

"Some of these ads, people running for office put their mug all over these ads while they're in the middle of a political campaign. In New Jersey, $25 million was spent on ads that included somebody running for political office (Christie). I'm thinking there might be a conflict of interest there. That's a real problem. And that's why, when people are trying to do good and trying to use the taxpayer's money wisely, they're offended to see our money spent on political ads. That's just offensive."

-Rand Paul.

 cincydooley wrote:
Honestly, I won't be responding to you seriously ever again. I really should just put you on my banned list I can't stand you so much. So yes, that's it.

 sebster wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Honestly, I won't be responding to you seriously ever again. I really should just put you on my banned list I can't stand you so much. So yes, that's it.

Huh. The right wing clones really do get a little shittier with every generation.