I couldn’t turn anywhere (in the news media) these last few days without reading about whether Chris Christie’s weight would/could/should impact his possible run for president.

If the columns denouncing Christie’s weight by Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post and Michael Kinsley at Bloomberg View were meant as shameless pageview generators, they probably worked.

But they really seem to have done a disservice both to the discussion about obesity in this country and the serious issues facing whoever wins the election.

If we really want to talk about obesity, take a look at the CDC’s maps showing the extent of the problem around the country. Below is a map of 2008 age-adjusted estimates of the percentage of adults who are obese (the darkest areas are greater than 30.8%).

What is being done about that? Does the government play any role? Should it?

We can also discuss the records of Christie and the man he wants to replace, President Obama. Here’s a column in the Star-Ledger at the end of last year by editorial page editor Tom Moran. He gave the governor an average grade.

As the stories all note, Christie would be the most overweight president since William Howard Taft, who had trouble getting out of the White House bathtub. (That’s a Taft campaign sign above.) But who cares?

Two smarter takes on the topic:

@TheFix: Chris Christie and the great weight debate

@FrankBruni: The Round and the Oval

@ezraklein: Chris Christie is not too fat to be president