Frederick, Maryland (CNN) — In front of a mirror, Aesha Mohammadzai sees what is possible.

There, in the center of her face, is a nearly complete piece of herself — a piece she’s been missing since the day she was mutilated nearly four years ago.

Since August 2010, when her image appeared on the cover of Time magazine, she’s been known for what she didn’t have. Her Taliban husband and in-laws hacked off her nose and ears as punishment for running away.

Her disfigured face became a symbol for oppressed women in Afghanistan, a reminder of what might come in spades if the Taliban regains control.

Today, she is only minor surgeries away from having the new nose she’s longed for. The grueling procedures — involving a painful skin expander in her forehead, as well as skin, bone and cartilage grafts — are behind her. Come this summer, for the first time in years, she will appear whole.

But rebuilding a nose and rebuilding a life are two very different propositions. The first involves her being at the mercy of others; the second demands that Aesha, 22, do the work.

With the end of her face’s transformation in sight, she and the Afghan family that’s embraced her believe everything else — an education, a career, independence — will be possible.

“She’s a very bright girl. And her future is actually in her hands, you know. But we are the instrument to coach her. … This should be our duty, to show her the right way and the wrong way,” says Mati Arsala, who serves as her father figure and is facing his own challenges today. “There is no limitation for her — where she can go.”

CNN has been following Aesha’s journey in America since January 2011, a year before we were even able to speak directly to Aesha — let alone take photographs or shoot video. In our initial exclusive piece, we explored her winding, complicated search to find a place to call home.

Her journey began with a few months in California, where she was supposed to get reconstructive surgery but was deemed too emotionally unstable to handle it. She then went to New York, where she stayed for a year under the care of the nonprofit Women for Afghan Women. There she made progress, with the help of tutors, English classes and therapy. But the support network in New York couldn’t give her something she’d eventually claim for herself.

Aesha wanted a family. And after meeting Mati, his wife Jamila Rasouli-Arsala and their daughter from Jamila’s first marriage, Aesha campaigned to join them through months of middle-of-the-night phone calls. Knowing what she’d been through, and believing they could give her something no one else could, they opened their doors. In late November 2012, she moved into their Fredrick, Maryland, home.

“I suffered a lot in my life,” Aesha said, as Jamila translated, days before her first surgery last June. “Now I feel that a light comes into my life.”

Her surrogate parents, though, are now swimming in their own sea of worries.

Days before Christmas, Mati lost his engineering job with Bechtel, one he’d had for nearly 30 years. And Jamila, who’d been an OBGYN in Germany before moving to the U.S. to join Mati, has struggled to find her way professionally. She needs to complete a residency program to practice medicine here, but so far has been unable to secure a spot in a program.

Jamila has spent the better part of the last year in New York, away from her family, working at a Brooklyn hospital as a house physician — a low-paying and demanding position open to doctors in her situation — in hopes it would help her land a residency this spring. But for the third year in a row, she came up empty-handed.

Their flexibility as a family, their ability to pick up as a unit and move for work, is limited in part by Aesha’s surgeries. She’s being treated for free at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. Once her nose is completed in the coming months, doctors will move onto her ears — a less-cumbersome reconstructive process, but one that will take time.

Her disfigured ears, though, have not haunted her like her nose. Her dark hair, which flows down to her waist, covers them.

Aesha’s transformed face, and her sense of peace and comfort in her new Maryland home, is a testament to her development. But as she progresses physically and emotionally, in other respects Aesha’s life is on hold — teetering between inertia and, at times, regression.

She’s been living in a protective bubble ever since her surgical process began 11 months ago. She’s floated between surgeries and, for the most part, not been engaged with the outside world. She, and those caring for her, say she can’t risk contracting a cold or, worse, an infection.

As a result, she’s stopped going to her weekly English classes and barely speaks English anymore. She stays up all night watching Bollywood videos and making jewelry. She sleeps during the day.

Mati and Jamila want to give her space to heal. Now is not the time to push her, they say. Soon enough, when her nose is complete, she’ll have no choice but to move forward.

But what will those next steps look like? What will her future hold?

No mirror can reflect to Aesha, or anyone else, those answers.

If you are interested in making a donation to Aesha’s personal account to support her on her journey, go to the website set up in June 2012 by the family who is caring for her: Aesha’s Journey.

Editor’s note: U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey, is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

(CNN) — Never before in Pakistan’s history has a parliamentary election resulted in a true democratic transition. Despite militant threats and attacks that left at least 21 people dead on election day, Pakistanis bravely voted in record numbers Saturday. 

While we’re still waiting for official results, the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz party looks to have a clear mandate to steer the country forward for the next five years.

This is an important moment, but the challenges ahead are daunting. Democracy and the institutions of civil society remain as fragile as ever, with minorities especially vulnerable to persecution. A range of militants groups still enjoys safe haven throughout the country.  And the economy is in shambles.   

Now is the time for Pakistan’s new leaders to grasp the nettle. It is time for the major parties to shift from campaigning to governing, consolidate democratic gains and tackle deteriorating security and economic conditions.

The stakes are enormous, and Pakistan’s new leaders cannot afford to miss this moment.  A recent Pew poll found that roughly nine in 10 Pakistanis believe the country is on the wrong track.

This week’s elections provided a voice for millions to cast their ballot for a better future, a democratic future. The United States should support this process and continue working toward a long-term relationship based on mutual goals.  

Pakistan today is buffeted by gale-force pressures: a long rivalry with India to its east, a bitter and bloody insurgency in its western tribal regions, a fragile transition in Afghanistan and twin financial and energy crises that burn at its core, leaving millions without power and businesses without access to credit. In the coming weeks, Pakistan may face a balance of payments crisis unless its new leaders take decisive action.

Deposed PM wins Pakistan election

There is no doubt that we are dealing with complicated issues in a volatile region. The United States has been working steadily with Pakistan to meet these challenges. With greater commitment and support from Pakistan’s new leaders, we can build on existing areas of cooperation even as we press our interests.

There is still a great deal of mistrust that permeates this relationship. It’s unacceptable that two years after the United States found and killed Osama bin Laden, the most noteworthy action taken to get the facts on how he came to be in Pakistan is the conviction of the doctor that helped us track him down.

We know that militant groups have taken refuge along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. And let’s face it: when Americans hear about U.S. troops in Afghanistan under attack by insurgents who enjoy safe haven in Pakistan, they naturally see red.

Despite these challenges, the reality is the United States and Pakistan share common interests and need to work closely together. Now is not the time to cut and run but to renew our efforts to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan and to address the terrorist threat that afflicts both our nations.

Pakistan remains vital to any sustainable and peaceful outcome in the region. It can support genuine reconciliation efforts with the Afghan Taliban or undermine them. It can serve as the most cost-effective supply route for withdrawing our troops and equipment from Afghanistan or block their passage. And it can rein in militant groups that threaten India and halt the spread of nuclear weapons and technology or aid in their proliferation.

If ever there was an opportunity for Pakistan to advance regional peace and security, this is it.  The international community is working toward a coordinated transition in Afghanistan to mitigate the prospects of civil war as foreign troops depart. We need Pakistan’s help to get this right. Without close cooperation, our efforts will be imperiled, and Pakistani fears of international abandonment will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, once said: “The story of Pakistan, its struggle and its achievement, is the very story of great human ideals, struggling to survive in the face of great odds and difficulties.” Pakistan’s story is still being written, but its next chapter will be defined by action, not by words alone. 

This week’s elections mark the beginning, not the end, of a long road. Pakistan’s new leaders have an historic opportunity to provide real leadership and show that democracy can deliver. For their sake and ours, let’s hope they rise to the challenge.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Robert Menendez.

Editor’s note: Julian Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. He is the author of “Jimmy Carter” and “Governing America.”

Princeton, New Jersey (CNN) — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie made headlines last week when one of his aides admitted that he had surgery to lose weight. Christie said that the surgery had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with his health and his family. Christie said: “It’s not a career issue for me. It is a long-term health issue for me and that’s the basis on which I made this decision. It’s not about anything other than that.”

It is impossible to know whether we should take Christie at face value. Given that there has been ongoing speculation about his presidential aspirations for 2016, often coupled with discussions of his struggle with weight, it is certainly not unreasonable to wonder whether these are related.

Why do Americans care about the weight of a candidate and why is appearance an issue in presidential elections? There is very little chance that the issue will go away. Certainly, old-fashioned bias has something to do with this concern.

The willingness to ridicule obesity and make fun of appearances based on weight remains more acceptable than other kinds of biased comments that are no longer tolerated. One study by Yale University recently showed that male jurors were biased against heavy women, and more likely to find them guilty than leaner women. Some have called obesity the last acceptable bias in American life.

We are also in a political era when politicians are more in the public eye than ever before. Like it or not, appearance matters. When William Howard Taft — weighing in at over 300 pounds — was president, most Americans rarely saw him, though jokes about his weight still circulated. But it was still a very different world. In the early 20th century, there was no television or Internet broadcasting constant footage of the president in action. Other than the occasional still image in the newspaper, or the footage in the newsreels before movies until the 1940s, politics was still a medium of words and print.

Since the emergence of television, however, we live in a visual political culture where appearances have become much more important. We vote based on what we see, or at least that is part of the calculation. It has become more important for presidents to convey the charisma of a John F. Kennedy and harder for those who are not as easy on the eye.

Weighing in on Christie’s surgery

Shallow visual preferences are not the only dynamic at work, however. The last half century has witnessed massive improvements in personal health. Americans are living longer and living better as a result of great advances in our understanding of nutrition and physical care. It is no longer uncommon for Americans to use a gym on a regular basis and to be much more cautious about what they eat. We expect politicians to live by the same standards. Indeed, we want our leaders to set examples for the rest of the nation.

Christie is certainly not the only candidate to face these kinds of questions. When Bill Clinton ran for the presidency in 1992, the media covered his tendency to eat junk food on the campaign trail and his weight gains were treated as problematic. After Clinton gained 30 pounds during the Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton noted, “The good news is, my husband loves to eat and enjoys it. The bad news is, he loves to eat, even when things are not always right for him.”

Another reason that weight and other physical health concerns have become more important is that the job of the presidency has become much more demanding. As the role of the federal government has expanded at home and the presence of the United States overseas has intensified, there is much more for a president to handle on a daily basis. The massive size of the executive branch and intense 24-hour news cycle makes the presidency a physically brutal job.

We often watch as presidents enter the White House looking young and spry, then exit with gray hair, tired and visibly worn down.

As with many other high-powered jobs, physical health is important to the ability of a person to handle these kinds of tasks, so it is logical that these considerations enter into the conversation.

All of this is to say that there are many reasons why voters and reporters will talk about Christie’s weight, and why Christie’s weight could become a major issue if he runs for president in 2016.

It’s important to note that there is some social science evidence that in certain cases voters may not be swayed by weight. In fact, according to one study, voters in certain cases can prefer obese to non-obese candidates. The studies showing this finding are still limited and, from the evidence of the presidential races of the past century, the signs still point to voters preferring candidates who are leaner.

There is clearly a huge risk in making our decisions about leaders based on appearances, which really do tell us little about what a person would do when faced with the big challenges of the day. Regardless, the conversation is unlikely to subside, given the times in which we live.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Julian Zelizer.

Editor’s note: U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey, is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

(CNN) — Never before in Pakistan’s history has a parliamentary election resulted in a true democratic transition. Despite militant threats and attacks that left at least 21 people dead on election day, Pakistanis bravely voted in record numbers Saturday. 

While we’re still waiting for official results, the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz party looks to have a clear mandate to steer the country forward for the next five years.

This is an important moment, but the challenges ahead are daunting. Democracy and the institutions of civil society remain as fragile as ever, with minorities especially vulnerable to persecution. A range of militants groups still enjoys safe haven throughout the country.  And the economy is in shambles.   

Now is the time for Pakistan’s new leaders to grasp the nettle. It is time for the major parties to shift from campaigning to governing, consolidate democratic gains and tackle deteriorating security and economic conditions.

The stakes are enormous, and Pakistan’s new leaders cannot afford to miss this moment.  A recent Pew poll found that roughly nine in 10 Pakistanis believe the country is on the wrong track.

This week’s elections provided a voice for millions to cast their ballot for a better future, a democratic future. The United States should support this process and continue working toward a long-term relationship based on mutual goals.  

Pakistan today is buffeted by gale-force pressures: a long rivalry with India to its east, a bitter and bloody insurgency in its western tribal regions, a fragile transition in Afghanistan and twin financial and energy crises that burn at its core, leaving millions without power and businesses without access to credit. In the coming weeks, Pakistan may face a balance of payments crisis unless its new leaders take decisive action.

Deposed PM wins Pakistan election

There is no doubt that we are dealing with complicated issues in a volatile region. The United States has been working steadily with Pakistan to meet these challenges. With greater commitment and support from Pakistan’s new leaders, we can build on existing areas of cooperation even as we press our interests.

There is still a great deal of mistrust that permeates this relationship. It’s unacceptable that two years after the United States found and killed Osama bin Laden, the most noteworthy action taken to get the facts on how he came to be in Pakistan is the conviction of the doctor that helped us track him down.

We know that militant groups have taken refuge along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. And let’s face it: when Americans hear about U.S. troops in Afghanistan under attack by insurgents who enjoy safe haven in Pakistan, they naturally see red.

Despite these challenges, the reality is the United States and Pakistan share common interests and need to work closely together. Now is not the time to cut and run but to renew our efforts to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan and to address the terrorist threat that afflicts both our nations.

Pakistan remains vital to any sustainable and peaceful outcome in the region. It can support genuine reconciliation efforts with the Afghan Taliban or undermine them. It can serve as the most cost-effective supply route for withdrawing our troops and equipment from Afghanistan or block their passage. And it can rein in militant groups that threaten India and halt the spread of nuclear weapons and technology or aid in their proliferation.

If ever there was an opportunity for Pakistan to advance regional peace and security, this is it.  The international community is working toward a coordinated transition in Afghanistan to mitigate the prospects of civil war as foreign troops depart. We need Pakistan’s help to get this right. Without close cooperation, our efforts will be imperiled, and Pakistani fears of international abandonment will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, once said: “The story of Pakistan, its struggle and its achievement, is the very story of great human ideals, struggling to survive in the face of great odds and difficulties.” Pakistan’s story is still being written, but its next chapter will be defined by action, not by words alone. 

This week’s elections mark the beginning, not the end, of a long road. Pakistan’s new leaders have an historic opportunity to provide real leadership and show that democracy can deliver. For their sake and ours, let’s hope they rise to the challenge.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Robert Menendez.

Editor’s note: Michael Macleod-Ball is chief of staff at the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office. Gabe Rottman is a legislative counsel/policy adviser in the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office.

(CNN) — The extraordinary revelation this week that the Internal Revenue Service targeted tea party groups for more aggressive enforcement highlights exactly why caution is needed in any response to the much-vilified Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC.

It also shows how all Americans, from the most liberal to the most conservative, should closely guard their First Amendment rights, and why giving the government too much power to limit political speech will inevitably result in selective enforcement against unpopular groups.

To the agency’s credit, Lois Lerner, a senior official at the IRS, apologized on Friday for these unconstitutional practices, which are as unseemly as the Bush administration’s targeting of the NAACP and the House of Representatives’ defunding of Planned Parenthood on purely political grounds.

Lerner said that career IRS staff who were reviewing applicants for tax-exempt status took a harder look at applications with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names. She stressed that the added scrutiny was done as a “shortcut,” not out of “political bias.” But her admission calls into question earlier claims by the agency that IRS scrutiny wasn’t politically motivated, and it comes in the face of repeated complaints by right-wing groups that they have been treated unfairly.

Collins says IRS revelations will fuel distrust in government

Before addressing the obvious constitutional concerns with the selective use of the tax code against political opponents, here’s some background.

Certain public interest groups, like charities and nonprofit athletic organizations, do not have to pay federal income tax on their donations or dues. These tax-exempt groups include 501(c)(4) organizations (named for the relevant section of the code). To qualify, a group must be “operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.” The definition of “social welfare” is broad, and applies to all points of view. The ACLU’s lobbying arm, for which we work, is a 501(c)(4). So is the National Right to Life Committee.

IRS targeted conservative groups

Taxing day for the IRS

These social welfare groups are forbidden from engaging in too much partisan political activity. How much is too much, however, is controversial and remains uncertain. An organization that crosses over the fuzzy line will be denied tax-exempt status.

Crucially, 501(c)(4) organizations, in most cases, need not publicly disclose their donors. That policy is driven by the same concerns that prompted the Supreme Court in a civil rights-era case, NAACP v. Alabama, to prohibit that state from forcing the NAACP to out its members as a condition of operating. The court reasoned, rightly, that such disclosure could lead to violence against existing members and would dissuade potential members from joining at all.

Now, during the past couple of elections there has been a surge in applications for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status. Some argue that these new groups are being created specifically to help elect or defeat candidates, which would otherwise prompt full donor disclosure to the Federal Election Commission.

Opponents claim these groups are abusively claiming tax-exempt status to keep their donor lists secret. Some further claim that these groups then allow wealthy individuals, corporations, and unions to anonymously funnel large amounts of money into ads supporting or attacking political candidates.

As a consequence, the IRS has been under enormous pressure to speed up and aggressively investigate applications for tax-exempt status — both reasonable demands, if carried out impartially. But much of this outside pressure has come from the left and has been directed at conservative groups, who have an advantage in this “dark” political money.

It sounds as though the events surrounding the IRS announcement can be partly attributed to this growth in applications and the pressure to uncover “sham” 501(c)(4) groups.

Although the IRS claims this was an honest mistake, these revelations are troubling on many levels. For instance, there are several proposals circulating in Washington right now that would make it much easier for the IRS and other regulators to force political groups to disclose their donors. These disclosure requirements would apply even when the group is advocating purely on an issue of public interest, from clean air to abortion, and would apply to groups of all political persuasions and not just to groups supporting or opposing candidates for office.

The ACLU has expressed concern with these disclosure requirements precisely because they open the door to selective enforcement. Such concerns are often dismissed as speculative and overly pessimistic, but the IRS apology shows that concerns over selective enforcement are prescient. Those in power will always be tempted to use political speech restrictions against opposing candidates or causes.

The IRS announcement demonstrates that we should carefully consider any new policy that allows the government to restrict or chill political speech, including broader donor disclosure requirements. Congress and the administration should also act immediately to create ironclad checks on the IRS to prevent this from ever happening again.

It shouldn’t need to be said: Even the tea party deserves First Amendment protection.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the authors.

Editor’s note: Rachel Simmons is co-founder of Girls Leadership Institute and author of “The Curse of the Good Girl: Raising Authentic Girls with Courage and Confidence.” Follow her on Twitter: @Racheljsimmons

(CNN) — Spring may be graduation season, but the most coveted rite of passage for many teenage girls is the prom.

From the latest craze of “promposals” to the minute-by-minute social media broadcast of it all, the rituals of prom form a throwback cultural primer called “How to be a young woman.” Teen girls are competing relentlessly to be queen.

The queens of prom are the conventionally beautiful, the wealthy and the heterosexual — always passively waiting to be asked.

Isn’t prom just a fun dance that hardworking students deserve? Sure, but it’s also an event where girls internalize damaging cultural messages. Those who are exalted on this “once in a lifetime” night offer an object lesson in how modern girls are expected to look and act.

Prom is a cultural report card of sorts on how well, or not, young women are doing.

Here’s what a bright 17-year-old girl learns as her lace gown drags behind her into the school gymnasium:

She learns that she must have money to attend the prom

Prom was modeled after the debutante ball of the old days, where elite girls formally announced they were ready to date, while a hand-picked bevy of suitors watched. Today, prom is still a rich girl’s party.

In 2013, prom spending will rise on the shoulders of a more robust economy. Families who plan to spend money on the big night are expected to drop an average of $1,139. All that cash might be good for business, but it disadvantages the poor and working class girls who can’t keep up. Meanwhile, boys can get away with renting a tux for less than $100.

She learns that conventional beauty is valued above all else

Girls will spend lavishly on expensive dresses and shoes, along with professional tanning, hair and makeup. The final look is a far cry from Molly Ringwald’s original, homespun vibe in the ’80s teen classic “Pretty in Pink.”

Instead, girls are angling for the Hollywood red carpet look. Oscar gown knockoffs, such as a copy of Jennifer Lawrence’s pink Dior dress, are among the most sought after this season.

Prom drops girls squarely into the beauty spending pipeline. It prepares them to shell out a disproportionate amount of money on their appearance as adult women, when they will spend $7 billion annually on makeup alone.

She learns that the most valued girls must wait to be asked

Asking season can begin during the winter, consigning girls looking for a date to months of anxious waiting. Nor is it enough just to be invited; now, the truly successful prom girls get elaborate public promposals, with suitors spelling out “Prom?” in cupcakes or smoke, as was the case with the boy who hired a skywriter.

By contrast, the brave girls who do the inviting often endure a scrim of embarrassment for breaking the unwritten rules. The message?

Assertiveness makes you less attractive, a lesson girls are likely to draw on as women, when they avoid asking for raises and are seen as less likeable when they do.

She learns to broadcast every minute of it to get ‘likes’

Prom culture is now painstakingly documented on sites such as Instagram and Facebook, exacerbating the angst of the uninvited.

The near constant posting of photos — of having one’s hair done, doing makeup, riding in the limo — becomes a strategic social press conference, announcing to anyone with a social media account that you are playing the game. The online photo albums are anxiously monitored as barometers of popularity, telling girls who is “in” and “out,” as many girls learn to equate their worth with the number of “likes” each photo receives.

The underside of this constant self-promotion is comparing oneself endlessly to others. The prom beauty contest in girlhood is a final dress rehearsal for modern womanhood when, in one study, 80% of women said they competed with peers over appearance.

She learns that straight is better

Who you bring to the prom is under as much scrutiny as the hem of your dress.

In all but the most progressive communities, prom glorifies heterosexuality, leaving gay youths facing disapproval at best, outright rejection at worst.

In its 2011 School Climate report, the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network found that same-sex couples were frequently not allowed to attend school dances together or were penalized for doing so, such as being ineligible for “couple discounts” on tickets.

The good news is that the rules of prom are starting to change.

Girls are pushing back against the pressure to wait for an invitation and are asking boys first. Lindsay, 17, a senior from San Antonio, engineered her own promposal with a poem, a special T-shirt and poster.

Meanwhile, same-sex couples are growing more visible. Dates are being replaced by whole groups of friends attending together. This spring, girls in Georgia used social media to end their town’s racially segregated proms with national support.

When I went to prom in the early 1990s, I seesawed between my wish to get asked by the right guy and ride in the cool kids’ limousine with the burgeoning realization that I was gay. I had a fun night, but I was far from my authentic, assertive self that night. Prom felt mostly like a job I had to do to maintain my position in the social hierarchy.

Three decades after Title IX, our culture has yet to decide how powerful it wants its girls to be. As we figure out the answer, prom becomes an even more important cultural touchstone for who we want our girls to become.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Rachel Simmons.

Editor’s note: Julian Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. He is the author of “Jimmy Carter” and “Governing America.”

Princeton, New Jersey (CNN) — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie made headlines last week when one of his aides admitted that he had surgery to lose weight. Christie said that the surgery had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with his health and his family. Christie said: “It’s not a career issue for me. It is a long-term health issue for me and that’s the basis on which I made this decision. It’s not about anything other than that.”

It is impossible to know whether we should take Christie at face value. Given that there has been ongoing speculation about his presidential aspirations for 2016, often coupled with discussions of his struggle with weight, it is certainly not unreasonable to wonder whether these are related.

Why do Americans care about the weight of a candidate and why is appearance an issue in presidential elections? There is very little chance that the issue will go away. Certainly, old-fashioned bias has something to do with this concern.

The willingness to ridicule obesity and make fun of appearances based on weight remains more acceptable than other kinds of biased comments that are no longer tolerated. One study by Yale University recently showed that male jurors were biased against heavy women, and more likely to find them guilty than leaner women. Some have called obesity the last acceptable bias in American life.

We are also in a political era when politicians are more in the public eye than ever before. Like it or not, appearance matters. When William Howard Taft — weighing in at over 300 pounds — was president, most Americans rarely saw him, though jokes about his weight still circulated. But it was still a very different world. In the early 20th century, there was no television or Internet broadcasting constant footage of the president in action. Other than the occasional still image in the newspaper, or the footage in the newsreels before movies until the 1940s, politics was still a medium of words and print.

Since the emergence of television, however, we live in a visual political culture where appearances have become much more important. We vote based on what we see, or at least that is part of the calculation. It has become more important for presidents to convey the charisma of a John F. Kennedy and harder for those who are not as easy on the eye.

Weighing in on Christie’s surgery

Shallow visual preferences are not the only dynamic at work, however. The last half century has witnessed massive improvements in personal health. Americans are living longer and living better as a result of great advances in our understanding of nutrition and physical care. It is no longer uncommon for Americans to use a gym on a regular basis and to be much more cautious about what they eat. We expect politicians to live by the same standards. Indeed, we want our leaders to set examples for the rest of the nation.

Christie is certainly not the only candidate to face these kinds of questions. When Bill Clinton ran for the presidency in 1992, the media covered his tendency to eat junk food on the campaign trail and his weight gains were treated as problematic. After Clinton gained 30 pounds during the Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton noted, “The good news is, my husband loves to eat and enjoys it. The bad news is, he loves to eat, even when things are not always right for him.”

Another reason that weight and other physical health concerns have become more important is that the job of the presidency has become much more demanding. As the role of the federal government has expanded at home and the presence of the United States overseas has intensified, there is much more for a president to handle on a daily basis. The massive size of the executive branch and intense 24-hour news cycle makes the presidency a physically brutal job.

We often watch as presidents enter the White House looking young and spry, then exit with gray hair, tired and visibly worn down.

As with many other high-powered jobs, physical health is important to the ability of a person to handle these kinds of tasks, so it is logical that these considerations enter into the conversation.

All of this is to say that there are many reasons why voters and reporters will talk about Christie’s weight, and why Christie’s weight could become a major issue if he runs for president in 2016.

It’s important to note that there is some social science evidence that in certain cases voters may not be swayed by weight. In fact, according to one study, voters in certain cases can prefer obese to non-obese candidates. The studies showing this finding are still limited and, from the evidence of the presidential races of the past century, the signs still point to voters preferring candidates who are leaner.

There is clearly a huge risk in making our decisions about leaders based on appearances, which really do tell us little about what a person would do when faced with the big challenges of the day. Regardless, the conversation is unlikely to subside, given the times in which we live.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Julian Zelizer.