Back on May 31, 2008, the WSJ talked with David Foster Wallace about his 2000 profile on John McCain in Rolling Stone. Here is a snippet:
WSJ: Have you changed your mind about any of the points that you made in the book?
Mr. Wallace: "In the best political tradition, I reject the premise of your question. The essay quite specifically concerns a couple weeks in February, 2000, and the situation of both McCain [and] national politics in those couple weeks. It is heavily context-dependent. And that context now seems a long, long, long time ago. McCain himself has obviously changed; his flipperoos and weaselings on Roe v. Wade, campaign finance, the toxicity of lobbyists, Iraq timetables, etc. are just some of what make him a less interesting, more depressing political figure now for me, at least. It's all understandable, of course he's the GOP nominee now, not an insurgent maverick. Understandable, but depressing. As part of the essay talks about, there's an enormous difference between running an insurgent Hail-Mary-type longshot campaign and being a viable candidate (it was right around New Hampshire in 2000 that McCain began to change from the former to the latter), and there are some deep, really rather troubling questions about whether serious honor and candor and principle remain possible for someone who wants to really maybe win. I wouldn't take back anything that got said in that essay, but I'd want a reader to keep the time and context very much in mind on every page."
DFW on McCain—8 Years Later
Posted by Rene & Kelley at 9/27/2008 10:35:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment