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.

A review of a current production of Titus Andronicus compares the play to slasher films, but differentiates it by noting the lack of complexity and sophistication in the latter. Titus Andronicus frequently inspires gore-laden productions, so this assessment is not totally surprising, however, what about reverse argument? What, if anything, is Shakespearean about slasher films? Are they in any way comparable?

Revenge plays a key role in both the tragedies of Shakespeare and slasher movies. Hamlet must avenge his father’s murder, while Coriolanus seeks revenge against the society that he believes rejected him. In horror filmdom, Freddy Krueger goes after the children of Elm Street as payback for their parents murdering him. Jason, who became the face of 1980’s horror, actually became the killer from the second Friday the 13th film onward. One of his primary motivations is revenge for his mother (who is the killer in the first film).

Like Shakespeare’s plays, the horror films eventually learned to expand their market by mixing genres. Shakespeare’s late-career works are alternately described as romances and tragicomedies in an attempt to categorize their melding of different genres. A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master plays with some potent executions added to the mix (a far cry from the more serious, shadowy figure depicted in the first installment).

Most importantly, both Shakespeare’s plays and horror movies ask us to identify with characters who aren’t particularly likeable or honorable. Macbeth and Lady M. are terrible people, but the play hinges on our investment in their undoing. Horror films, particularly in their heyday two decades ago, asked us not only to like but to root for demented, undead sociopaths. Ultimately, both allow audiences to take a trip to the dark side.

In a recent editorial titled “Great Republican Shakespeare Festival,” a Minnesota man bemoaned the presence of a Republican politician at a local Shakespeare Festival. While the majority of the article criticized the actions of the politician, the title of it made me wonder if there could be such a thing as a Republican, Democrat, or Green Shakespeare Festival. Which plays would speak most to which demographic? Could Shakespeare play a part in the 2008 elections?

The comedies are an easy fit for the Democrats, particularly A Midsummer Night’s Dream and Twelfth Night. The former recognizes non-Christian religious practices in a statement of religious tolerance. The latter, which plays with cross-dressing and ambiguous sexuality, clearly seeks to embrace people of all identities. The Tempest would be an ideal centerpiece for the Green Party. After all, isn’t it a kind of Elizabethan precursor to An Inconvenient Truth? Finally, for the Republican Shakespeare Festival that our friend from Minnesota envisioned, my choice would be Coriolanus. The title character is a hero who understands the sacrifices of war, and when the people turn against him and he’s tempted to join the other side, he’s saved by—what else?—a mother’s love. That’s family values, people. So here’s a memo to candidates Clinton, Romney, Obama, McCain, and all the rest: brush up your Shakespeare.