The L.A. times, it seems, finds the current presidential campaign highly Shakespearean. Touching on theories about where Will himself might have fallen politically, an article in the Times focuses most of its energy on the three remaining candidates in the presidential race: John McCain, the clear choice of the Republicans; and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who continue to vie for the Democratic nomination. Given Shakespeare’s penchant for plays about rulers and power, the author of this piece finds apt comparison between many of Shakespeare’s leaders (both good and bad). While he sees shades of Coriolanus in McCain and Richard II in Obama, his comparisons for Senator Clinton are less apt (Kate from The Taming of the Shrew). A second comparison goes outside the plays and parallels Ms. Clinton to the Virgin Queen herself, Elizabeth I.

Now, admittedly, Shakespeare’s plays are hardly equal in terms of sex/gender issues, but it seems the author of this article (whether purposefully or inadvertently) has stumbled into similar territory. Are a shrew and a virgin really all he could come up with for Hillary? Why couldn’t he disregard the sex of the character and focus on the personality traits instead? Why not compare Hillary and Hamlet’s careful orchestration of their public personas? In addition, both Hillary and Hamlet have seen sordid familial dramas overshadow other aspects of their lives/careers. The parallel to Elizabeth I is not completely without merit because, like the Senator, she was in the impossible situation of having to spin their womanhood for the public. Still, it seems this author could have presented a more balanced comparison that measured all three characters on the same terms.

Posted Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:47:38 and filed under Richard II, Coriolanus, The Taming of the Shrew, Hamlet, Politics, Uncategorized. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.