Perhaps it’s my affinity for MacBeth (no I didn’t mean to post two times in a row on Shakespeare, GAH!) … it’s just that I’m not so sure that McCain would be MacBeth. The names sound similar, of course. And there’s no doubt both are ambitious. But so are many other characters – in real life and in fiction.
To me, McCain is more Richard III.
Where MacBeth is racked by guilt before he makes his move, where he turns to his wife as his confidant, Richard is merely unbridled ambition, alone, embittered, made nasty by what has befallen him.
Both Richard II and McCain come from storied, military families, and each has been scarred in battle.
Both are physically deformed. Richard III reportedly was a hunchback or had some sort of physical infirmities; McCain (as we all know) suffered years of torture in the Hanoi Hilton which left him with limited motion in his arms.
Both married to political advantage …. Richard III married Anne Neville, a young heiress, the daughter of Warwick the Kingmaker. McCain married a young beer distribution heiress, Cindy Hensley.
… Yet neither seem to share their ambitions with their wives; both in fact, neglect them. (Hence one objection to the MacBeth comparison) Queen Anne is pitied by her contemporaries, while Rolling Stone reports an aide describing Cindy McCain as “very sad, lonely woman whose marriage of convenience to a U.S. senator has driven her to . . . cover feelings of despair with drugs.” That Rolling Stone quotes others who witness McCain calling his wife the c-word, well….. Well!
Both have carefully groomed reputations …. When the play begins, Richard, Duke of Gloucester is a loyal deputy. He has a carefully managed reputation for honesty. Reminiscent of the Straight Talk Express?
… And it isn’t until he reaches for the crown that his schemes and true face are revealed.