And later GUEST, Tunesmith, asked this misleading question:

If Tony Blair were to put on 4 stone, would he be able to do his job as efficiently as he is at present? Surely that extra weight would be a hindrance!

You are talking about something else than your initial premise.

You started (using Sharon as your whipping-boy) with the suggestion that in general overweight politicians cannot/will not do a good job in office.

In this case, your instance MIGHT suggest that a given politician would not do as good a (or a worse) job at a higher weight. I am prepared to entertain the possibility that Blair, if greatly overweight, MIGHT be more sluggish in his thinking than he would "in fighting trim", so to speak. But of course that can't be tested.

But if one is given a candidate for office who is quite obese but has a terrific track record behind him at something like that weight, he should be judged and voted in or out on his record.

The plain fact is, however, that the electorate does take the appearance of a candidate into account, consciously or unconsciously, and the less-physically-appealing candidate (for whatever reason)has a negative that he needs to make up for. If the heavy politician is elected despite his appearance, it is clear that the electorate has considered his track record, his platform, his personality more important than his adiposity.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am about fifty pounds overweight, and decidedly not "physically fit". But I'm still smart enough NOT to run for office!

Dave Oesterreich