What do you think?
Rate this book
Up, Simba!
In February 2000, "Rolling Stone" magazine sent David Foster Wallace, "NOT A POLITICAL JOURNALIST, " on the road for a week with Senator John McCain's campaign to win the Republican nomination for the Presidency. They wanted to know why McCain appealed so much to so many Americans, and particularly why he appealed to the "Young Voters" of America who generally show nothing but apathy.
The "Director's Cut" (three times longer than the RS article) is an incisive, funny, thoughtful piece about life on "Bullshit One" -- the nickname for the press bus that followed McCain's Straight Talk Express.
This piece becomes ever more relevant, as we discuss what we know, don't know, and don't want to know about the way our political campaigns work.
The "Director's Cut" (three times longer than the RS article) is an incisive, funny, thoughtful piece about life on "Bullshit One" -- the nickname for the press bus that followed McCain's Straight Talk Express.
This piece becomes ever more relevant, as we discuss what we know, don't know, and don't want to know about the way our political campaigns work.
Hardcover
First published September 1, 2000
18 people are currently reading
206 people want to read
About the author
David Foster Wallace
131 books13.2k followersDavid Foster Wallace was an acclaimed American writer known for his fiction, nonfiction, and critical essays that explored the complexities of consciousness, irony, and the human condition. Widely regarded as one of the most innovative literary voices of his generation, Wallace is perhaps best known for his 1996 novel Infinite Jest, which was listed by Time magazine as one of the 100 best English-language novels published between 1923 and 2005. His unfinished final novel, The Pale King, was published posthumously in 2011 and was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize.
Born in Ithaca, New York, Wallace was raised in Illinois, where he excelled as both a student and a junior tennis player—a sport he later wrote about with sharp insight and humor. He earned degrees in English and philosophy from Amherst College, then completed an MFA in creative writing at the University of Arizona. His early academic work in logic and philosophy informed much of his writing, particularly in his blending of analytical depth with emotional complexity.
Wallace’s first novel, The Broom of the System (1987), established his reputation as a fresh literary talent. Over the next two decades, he published widely in prestigious journals and magazines, producing short stories, essays, and book reviews that earned him critical acclaim. His work was characterized by linguistic virtuosity, inventive structure, and a deep concern for moral and existential questions. In addition to fiction, he tackled topics ranging from tennis and state fairs to cruise ships, politics, and the ethics of food consumption.
Beyond his literary achievements, Wallace had a significant academic career, teaching literature and writing at Emerson College, Illinois State University, and Pomona College. He was known for his intense engagement with students and commitment to teaching.
Wallace struggled with depression and addiction for much of his adult life, and he was hospitalized multiple times. He died by suicide in 2008 at the age of 46. In the years since his death, his influence has continued to grow, inspiring scholars, conferences, and a dedicated readership. However, his legacy is complicated by posthumous revelations of abusive behavior, particularly during his relationship with writer Mary Karr, which has led to ongoing debate within literary and academic communities.
His distinctive voice—by turns cerebral, comic, and compassionate—remains a defining force in contemporary literature. Wallace once described fiction as a way of making readers feel "less alone inside," and it is that emotional resonance, alongside his formal daring, that continues to define his place in American letters.
Born in Ithaca, New York, Wallace was raised in Illinois, where he excelled as both a student and a junior tennis player—a sport he later wrote about with sharp insight and humor. He earned degrees in English and philosophy from Amherst College, then completed an MFA in creative writing at the University of Arizona. His early academic work in logic and philosophy informed much of his writing, particularly in his blending of analytical depth with emotional complexity.
Wallace’s first novel, The Broom of the System (1987), established his reputation as a fresh literary talent. Over the next two decades, he published widely in prestigious journals and magazines, producing short stories, essays, and book reviews that earned him critical acclaim. His work was characterized by linguistic virtuosity, inventive structure, and a deep concern for moral and existential questions. In addition to fiction, he tackled topics ranging from tennis and state fairs to cruise ships, politics, and the ethics of food consumption.
Beyond his literary achievements, Wallace had a significant academic career, teaching literature and writing at Emerson College, Illinois State University, and Pomona College. He was known for his intense engagement with students and commitment to teaching.
Wallace struggled with depression and addiction for much of his adult life, and he was hospitalized multiple times. He died by suicide in 2008 at the age of 46. In the years since his death, his influence has continued to grow, inspiring scholars, conferences, and a dedicated readership. However, his legacy is complicated by posthumous revelations of abusive behavior, particularly during his relationship with writer Mary Karr, which has led to ongoing debate within literary and academic communities.
His distinctive voice—by turns cerebral, comic, and compassionate—remains a defining force in contemporary literature. Wallace once described fiction as a way of making readers feel "less alone inside," and it is that emotional resonance, alongside his formal daring, that continues to define his place in American letters.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
November 26, 2015
It’s Thanksgiving, 2015, and we’re in the throes of the craziest presidential campaign ever, because of one Donald J. Trump, so I decided to re-read Wallace’s essay about presidential campaigns, the 2000’s Republican’s campaign for its nominee. The contest was between George W. Bush and Senator John S. McCain. I wish I could gather all my family and friends around the fire this Thanksgiving and we could talk about politics and the campaign, after everyone reads this essay. Wallace takes us inside politics and people as only he can/could. His ability to see the smallest and most telling of details about that which he was observing has never been equaled, in my opinion. His look inside the race, 15 years ago, could have been written yesterday – that little has changed, except for Donald J. Trump, who I’m supporting and all my F&Fs think I’m crazy for – because they think he’s (Trump) racist, sexist, xenophobic, a bully and egotistical, a maniacal demagogue. I think he’s the answer. Wallace uncovers all the lying and deception and manipulating and calculating that is the nature of politics. He shows how campaigns real target is the media, to convince them of the virtues of the candidate and then rely on the reporters to tell the story of how their guy is the virtuous one—the problem solver; all of which, the problems, are the same today as they were 15 years ago, which ought to tell you something, even though it is now post 911 and we are mired in a seemingly endless war against terrorism … or is it truth? The voters, you, are really not what matters, but are just used as a means to the end. The end being to get the candidate elected. Wallace calls McCain the “Anticandidate” – which compared to Trump, well, it is no contest. Trump is the anti-candidate – because he [unlike McCain, he of The Straight Talk Express (his bus) and who swears to “Always. Tell. The. Truth.”] never leaves any doubt about what he thinks and who he is and what he has done, if you listen closely, and don’t buy what the media is selling. Trump is not humble and doesn’t pretend to be; McCain … ? Wallace uncovers all the strategies campaigns use to make their point – elect their guy and not the other guy, who’s a lying no good in-it-only-for-the-power-and-the-glory guy … and it makes you wonder – about everything. Trump said of McCain, “He’s no hero. He’s a hero only because he got shot down and was captured. I like guys who weren’t captured.” Oh the audacity! How dare he question McCain’s heroism. Actually, it was McCain who declared he was not a hero, it was part of his campaign’s spiel. In his own words, ‘“It doesn’t take much talent to get shot down”; “I wasn’t a hero, but fortunate enough to serve my time in the company of heroes” – this could be real humility, or it could be a clever way to make himself both heroic *and* humble.”’ Wallace notes. Wallace delves into the question of what is really going on with politicians, even McCain. Who is “the real John McCain”? Can we ever know? Wallace seems to think the answer is no, that who a person is, especially a politician is ‘Impenetrable.” Oh how I wish Wallace were here to cover Trump’s campaign. Wallace might have had some of his questions answered, or in the least, clear some things up for we voters – draw some real contrast between the real politician and the truth. “What’s the difference between hypocrisy and paradox?” Wallace asks. How is it possible to discern between what is true and what is just a “marketing angle.” How can we decide between our “deep need to believe and [our] deep belief that the need to believe is bullshit, that there’s nothing left anywhere but sales and salesmen.” (And killers – be they terrorists, Jihadists, cops or criminals.) And then there is Trump – winning. Is it real? Is he real? Is his hair real? Oh how I wish we could gather ‘round the fire and talk, after all of us reading Wallace’s essay, “Up Simba.” [Simba being the 40lb camera one of the tech guys’ hauled everywhere to record the campaign for the news, for the news’ directors and “talent”; to filter to us to watch, to watch what they decided we should watch, so as for us to better decide who to vote for, for who “they” decided, consciously or unconsciously, we should vote for – who the Right candidate is to be the next leader of the Free World; most (“70%) of whom Trump calls “scum.” Trumps’s not playing the game, he is the true, real, authentic, “Anticandidate.”] Read this, please, before you decide whom to vote for, and don’t think that not voting is not voting – it’s voting, for sure, Wallace explains that, too. This is Wallace at his best – non-fiction – trying to discern what is real and what is not real.
August 24, 2017
Questo saggio breve dimostra come il Realismo Isterico di David F Wallace sia, più che una tecnica, una chiave di lettura della realtà.
Wallace racconta la campagna per le primarie di John McCain, candidato repubblicano outsider, "anti politico" e "anti mediatico". Questa roba è incredibilmente attuale per l'Italia dei 5 stelle, ed è inevitabilmente una serie di acrobazie realisticamente isteriche sul paradosso dell'antipolitico che vuol candidarsi a Presidente degli USA e che usa i media per diffondere l'idea che lui è indifferente ai media.
Sul finale la riflessione si fa geniale, spostandosi dal candidato all'intimità più intima dell'osservatore: "se tu, come il presente reporter non professionista del Rolling Stones, sei arrivato al punto di temere il tuo cinismo come temi la tua credulità e il piazzista che la nutre..." [capirai che] "il ritenere McCain sincero o no dipende adesso meno da quello che c'è nel suo cuore, di quello che potrebbe essere nel tuo".
Wallace non ha mai parlato con McCain, ma neanche col suo portavoce e capo dello staff, ma in quella cella impenetrabile c'è arrivato lo stesso. E in qualche modo ha comunicato l'inesprimibile che ci ha trovato dentro.
Wallace racconta la campagna per le primarie di John McCain, candidato repubblicano outsider, "anti politico" e "anti mediatico". Questa roba è incredibilmente attuale per l'Italia dei 5 stelle, ed è inevitabilmente una serie di acrobazie realisticamente isteriche sul paradosso dell'antipolitico che vuol candidarsi a Presidente degli USA e che usa i media per diffondere l'idea che lui è indifferente ai media.
Sul finale la riflessione si fa geniale, spostandosi dal candidato all'intimità più intima dell'osservatore: "se tu, come il presente reporter non professionista del Rolling Stones, sei arrivato al punto di temere il tuo cinismo come temi la tua credulità e il piazzista che la nutre..." [capirai che] "il ritenere McCain sincero o no dipende adesso meno da quello che c'è nel suo cuore, di quello che potrebbe essere nel tuo".
Wallace non ha mai parlato con McCain, ma neanche col suo portavoce e capo dello staff, ma in quella cella impenetrabile c'è arrivato lo stesso. E in qualche modo ha comunicato l'inesprimibile che ci ha trovato dentro.
September 18, 2020
This is best described as David Foster Wallace's experience traveling with John McCain in the winter of 2000 as he tried to wrest the Republican nomination from George W. Bush. 16 years old and this story is already a period piece. It's easy to forget that McCain was treated like Prince Valiant by the media in 2000. He wouldn't get the same treatment in 2008 when the media had a new Prince. But the real story is less about McCain and how Wallace sees the political process.
Wallace comes to a conclusion about modern politics that Joe McGuiness taught us in the The Selling of the President. Candidates are consumer goods and PR and Ad campaigns help push the product. Here Wallace is intrigued by McCain in that he wants to separate the advertising from the product, but concludes that they are so intertwined in American politics that he cannot be sure which he is seeing. His only mistake about the process might be his naïve thinking that Sorensen's speeches for Kennedy were immune from calculation when they were probably the very thing that led Nixon to change his approach to media in 1968.
But Wallace isn't a student of political history. He's a student of people. And his best insights in this piece aren't about McCain or other politicians, although he describes Gore and Bush well. The best insights are about the process as a whole What the reporters sees and how they shape what the public sees. I like that Wallace describes the tiers of media professionals following a campaign and how the army moves from city to city, day after day. How they eat. When they sleep. Who gets to ask questions. How the techs differ from the reporters. How some stay with a campaign for months and other parachute in for 10 days. The average reporter would be so use to these details that they could be skipped, but the neophyte Wallace describes them to the benefit of the general public.
Wallace may not think so, but he makes a good case that the best reporters should be cynical rather than idealistic, because Wallace is asking better questions to himself than they are to the candidate. You get the impression that the news is shaped by what makes the best story, even if the underlying logic behind the story is manufactured. These aren't the reporters of the Hecht/MacArthur The Front Page play that speak cynical with each other and then write the purple prose. These are journalists that barely do anything unexpected in their questions and their stories. Do modern journalists read The Boys on the Bus about the way politicians try to shape the news? I would venture a guess they only take those lessons into account for a politician they are opposed to. It's a shame that Wallace did not live to ride the McCain bus in October of 2008 where the press treated McCain like any garden variety Republican. The contrast of those two campaigns in the stylings of David Foster Wallace would have been a singular experience.
If you like political history or DFW or just good writing this is worth giving a spin.
Wallace comes to a conclusion about modern politics that Joe McGuiness taught us in the The Selling of the President. Candidates are consumer goods and PR and Ad campaigns help push the product. Here Wallace is intrigued by McCain in that he wants to separate the advertising from the product, but concludes that they are so intertwined in American politics that he cannot be sure which he is seeing. His only mistake about the process might be his naïve thinking that Sorensen's speeches for Kennedy were immune from calculation when they were probably the very thing that led Nixon to change his approach to media in 1968.
But Wallace isn't a student of political history. He's a student of people. And his best insights in this piece aren't about McCain or other politicians, although he describes Gore and Bush well. The best insights are about the process as a whole What the reporters sees and how they shape what the public sees. I like that Wallace describes the tiers of media professionals following a campaign and how the army moves from city to city, day after day. How they eat. When they sleep. Who gets to ask questions. How the techs differ from the reporters. How some stay with a campaign for months and other parachute in for 10 days. The average reporter would be so use to these details that they could be skipped, but the neophyte Wallace describes them to the benefit of the general public.
Wallace may not think so, but he makes a good case that the best reporters should be cynical rather than idealistic, because Wallace is asking better questions to himself than they are to the candidate. You get the impression that the news is shaped by what makes the best story, even if the underlying logic behind the story is manufactured. These aren't the reporters of the Hecht/MacArthur The Front Page play that speak cynical with each other and then write the purple prose. These are journalists that barely do anything unexpected in their questions and their stories. Do modern journalists read The Boys on the Bus about the way politicians try to shape the news? I would venture a guess they only take those lessons into account for a politician they are opposed to. It's a shame that Wallace did not live to ride the McCain bus in October of 2008 where the press treated McCain like any garden variety Republican. The contrast of those two campaigns in the stylings of David Foster Wallace would have been a singular experience.
If you like political history or DFW or just good writing this is worth giving a spin.
May 7, 2017
DFW is breathtakingly genius, as you can see in this supposedly non-political long essay on McCain2000 Campaign. A must-read, especially in the exhaustion/excitement of the election days.
March 27, 2016
In the end, the Shrub won. McCain, the anticandidate of the 2000's could not stand a chance in a Republican Establishment bent on regaining the power, returning to the "good old days". We know how and when by watching TV, or reading the news. And we take the news as it is. Sent by the Rolling Stones mag. on McCain's campaign trail, David Foster Wallace chose a different approach in understanding the party politics, the Babel-like going and coming of political strategies. On top if it, he presents McCain as a man, honest, courageous, flawed, a speaker of truth and a liar, helped by a marketing-like staff, the brain-dead press corps of the major news outlets - called by DFW "the 12 monkeys", buses and inns and sandwiches, a political world in which anything must be sold to an electorate brain-trained to know-it-all and smirk at the bombardment of commercials, but at the same time being a rapid and ferocious buyer of the same hated product. His ending, presenting a McCain through the classical cynicism lens, reminds us also that he was sometimes a man, alone, in a box, beaten and hurt, and not just a TV appearance. That we must see our limits when judging a man and "Try to stay awake".
Read
July 2, 2023DFW is so good at making uninteresting things super interesting. This is sort of a directors cut of a piece he wrote for Rolling Stone following John McCain on his 2000 campaign to win the primaries against Bush. But he puts into words these seemingly intangible things about the human condition
April 27, 2017
An as-it-happened commentary penned by my favourite GenX writer of the 2000 Republican Presidential nomination race: where going negative worked against expectations, where the anti-candidate lost to the establishment favourite, and "alt-media" meant The Rolling Stone, not obscure puppet blogs masquerading as legitimate news sites (pardon my cynicism).
It's hard to imagine John McCain as an Anti-Candidate (and even harder as the greater of two evils as he's sometimes sceptically cast by Wallace) given his subsequent record as a Senator. His appeal to the youth vote anticipates Obama's but provides a stark contrast to the appeal of the most recent, and successful, Anti-Candidate, currently in the White House.
In light of the current political climate, it's a nice bit of political nostalgia, for a time when things seemed better - the 90s were pretty decent, if coming to a close. The Berlin Wall had fallen and Germany was reunited; Appartheid had ended, Nelson Mandela was free; the IRA disbanded; peace in the Middle East looked like it might have been a thing; Thatcher et. al were out; the Internet was bright, shiny and new; anti-globalization was the fight of the left and protest movements were still a successful thing. But then again, I was young and naive - pardon my rose-coloured glasses.
It's hard to imagine John McCain as an Anti-Candidate (and even harder as the greater of two evils as he's sometimes sceptically cast by Wallace) given his subsequent record as a Senator. His appeal to the youth vote anticipates Obama's but provides a stark contrast to the appeal of the most recent, and successful, Anti-Candidate, currently in the White House.
In light of the current political climate, it's a nice bit of political nostalgia, for a time when things seemed better - the 90s were pretty decent, if coming to a close. The Berlin Wall had fallen and Germany was reunited; Appartheid had ended, Nelson Mandela was free; the IRA disbanded; peace in the Middle East looked like it might have been a thing; Thatcher et. al were out; the Internet was bright, shiny and new; anti-globalization was the fight of the left and protest movements were still a successful thing. But then again, I was young and naive - pardon my rose-coloured glasses.
September 2, 2017
In here, David Foster Wallace was trying to tell that John McCain, the candidate of United States President in year 2000, as objective as he could.
He was chosen to represent the Rolling Stones, as a non-political writer, to see and write about this man. There is a lot I don't know about presidency in the United States, especially back then, but I know after reading this that politics itself is a battleground. It is mischievous, selfish, and filled with boobie-trapped stage everyone needs to be careful of. As I read this, I could understand how a young veteran tries his best, in sincerity or in selling himself as good as possible, is trying to tell the truth, and do his best to the people in the United States. I never knew the guy, but I kinda respect him now.
This book will give you insight at why it happened the way it happens, why John McCain lost half its voters and eventually lose his position to Bush.
Like I said, I'm not from the United States, but reading this.. It's quite sad, really.
He was chosen to represent the Rolling Stones, as a non-political writer, to see and write about this man. There is a lot I don't know about presidency in the United States, especially back then, but I know after reading this that politics itself is a battleground. It is mischievous, selfish, and filled with boobie-trapped stage everyone needs to be careful of. As I read this, I could understand how a young veteran tries his best, in sincerity or in selling himself as good as possible, is trying to tell the truth, and do his best to the people in the United States. I never knew the guy, but I kinda respect him now.
This book will give you insight at why it happened the way it happens, why John McCain lost half its voters and eventually lose his position to Bush.
Like I said, I'm not from the United States, but reading this.. It's quite sad, really.
September 23, 2015
It's less about McCain the candidate (or even McCain the man), then it is about how the press that covers a campaign becomes part of it. It is also interesting in light of everything we've been talking about. Consider this description of political candidates:
"...cool, interesting, alive people do not seem to be the ones who are drawn to the political process. Think back to the sort of kids in high school or college who were into running for student office: dweeby, overgroomed, obsequious to authority, ambitious in a sad way. Eager to play the Game. The kind of kids other kids would want to beat up if it didn't seem so pointless an dull...Men who aren't enough like human beings even to dislike---what one feels when they loom into view is just an overwhelming lack of interest."
He's writing about Al Gore and Steve Forbes but he could just as easily be talking about Ted Cruz and Scott Walker.
And it is what makes both Obama and Trump, for good and ill, catch fire.
"...cool, interesting, alive people do not seem to be the ones who are drawn to the political process. Think back to the sort of kids in high school or college who were into running for student office: dweeby, overgroomed, obsequious to authority, ambitious in a sad way. Eager to play the Game. The kind of kids other kids would want to beat up if it didn't seem so pointless an dull...Men who aren't enough like human beings even to dislike---what one feels when they loom into view is just an overwhelming lack of interest."
He's writing about Al Gore and Steve Forbes but he could just as easily be talking about Ted Cruz and Scott Walker.
And it is what makes both Obama and Trump, for good and ill, catch fire.
September 23, 2017
more about the media coverage surrounding presidential campaigns than it is about McCain 2000 -- which is great.
also the source of this much-quoted & endlessly relevant paragraph:
If you are bored and disgusted by politics and don’t bother to vote, you are in effect voting for the entrenched Establishments of the two major parties, who rest assured are not dumb and are keenly aware that it is in their interests to keep you disgusted and bored and cynical and to give you every possible psychological reason to stay at home doing one-hitters and watching MTV Spring Break on Primary Day. By all means stay home if you want, but don’t bullshit yourself that you’re not voting. In reality, there is no such thing as not voting : you either vote by voting, or you vote by staying home and tacitly doubling the value of some Diehard’s vote.
also the source of this much-quoted & endlessly relevant paragraph:
If you are bored and disgusted by politics and don’t bother to vote, you are in effect voting for the entrenched Establishments of the two major parties, who rest assured are not dumb and are keenly aware that it is in their interests to keep you disgusted and bored and cynical and to give you every possible psychological reason to stay at home doing one-hitters and watching MTV Spring Break on Primary Day. By all means stay home if you want, but don’t bullshit yourself that you’re not voting. In reality, there is no such thing as not voting : you either vote by voting, or you vote by staying home and tacitly doubling the value of some Diehard’s vote.
March 26, 2018
Great reporting from John McCain's 2000 campaign. Reading it in light of today's political moment is all the more interesting. Wallace shows what a dog-and-pony show political campaigning is, and how difficult it can be for an honest candidate to make headway in a system that is designed for effectiveness rather than transparency and honesty.
The writing and point-of-view is amazing. The only downside of this essay is that it abruptly stops where it should keep going--to the eventual loss and unraveling of the campaign--and ends instead on McCain's handling of a controversy which paints him in an ambiguous light, and then a short diatribe on the lack of honesty in the salesmanship of politics, and a call to voters to pay attention and 'stay awake,' which, to me, was a little beneath Wallace's ability.
Anyway, great essay, recommend for politically interested folks.
The writing and point-of-view is amazing. The only downside of this essay is that it abruptly stops where it should keep going--to the eventual loss and unraveling of the campaign--and ends instead on McCain's handling of a controversy which paints him in an ambiguous light, and then a short diatribe on the lack of honesty in the salesmanship of politics, and a call to voters to pay attention and 'stay awake,' which, to me, was a little beneath Wallace's ability.
Anyway, great essay, recommend for politically interested folks.
December 13, 2016
It's good and all, but it never feels particularly revelatory about the ins and outs of covering a campaign and what campaign life is, what is basically the intent of the whole thing in the first place. All the John McCain insights about his personality don't really seem that interesting or new, but I think that's primarily due to the fact that I'm reading this 16 years after it was written and McCain's other presidential campaigns since then have informed this portrait of him that I already knew (ie. the whole Vietnam POW stuff, and how he seemingly flys in the face of what a buttoned up politician should act like).
Read
December 15, 2016Love DFW, this is a slighter longer politically oriented "This is water". Same humor, less of a central message, but still thought provoking.
It's centered on DFW's unconventional and fish-out-of-water political coverage of one week on the 2000 John McCain presidential campaign trail.
I like non-fiction political books a little too much. Especially the gossipy ones. This was a cool perspective on a cool event.
It's centered on DFW's unconventional and fish-out-of-water political coverage of one week on the 2000 John McCain presidential campaign trail.
I like non-fiction political books a little too much. Especially the gossipy ones. This was a cool perspective on a cool event.
April 26, 2021
It is hard to think of John McCain as an anti-candidate or even an appealing outsider as he was in the 2000 election. David Foster Wallace's style echoes Hunter S. Thompson's in that he captures aspects of the campaign trail that other seasoned, quasi-serious reporters miss. However, Foster Wallace manages to infuse his reporting with a faint sense of hope/expectation that spin/politics-as-usual does not always have to be that way. Worth the read.
May 16, 2017
In this brilliant essay on John McCain, David F. Wallace shows the making and breaking of McCain's presidential candidacy; the rise of an anti candidate to his fall amongst populist explosion. Full of Wallace's trademark dry wit, this prose is apt for a quick afternoon read for all political science fans.
August 10, 2016
Fantastic essay.
April 1, 2023
Is just a random article about a former us president candidate. I don't understand why this was put in a book binding.
It was ok to read, too long for when it would be relevant in my opinion, and still long now.
There's not much author opinion, and is just a long description of a few days.
It was ok to read, too long for when it would be relevant in my opinion, and still long now.
There's not much author opinion, and is just a long description of a few days.
December 2, 2024
Prescient!!!!!
August 20, 2025
Audiobook.
July 12, 2019
It was really interesting reading this book about McCain's 2000 presidential primary, comparing it mentally to Trump. Interesting how the Republican machine was able to protect the Shrub, arguably a weaker person and candidate than McCain, but was unable to protect the country from Trump, a much weaker person and candidate than the Shrub, McCain, and many other Republican candidates. And I love David Foster Wallace's sentence construction. I know it's not considered well-written, but I find it hysterical! I am so sad he is no longer with us.
July 23, 2007
Wallace's e-book (that is now in one of his short story collections) is a fascinating portrayal of John McCain's 2000 presidential campaign. It shows both the man himself and the crush of people looking to build him up and cut him down. An old-fashioned, black and white story that shows the true nature of politics today.
March 4, 2009
I rarely like political non-fiction but this expanded Rolling Stone article was very engaging. I am going to read the rest of DFW's non-fiction before I give his fiction a try. I am going to count the suicude references, so far we are up to 2.
May 23, 2015
Surprisingly relevant twelve years later, particularly in relation to people's general apathy about politics, and on the difficulty of ever being able to tell whether someone is for real or just really good at selling you the idea that they are.
September 18, 2007
The title essay is the heartbreaking story of John McCain as he gets chewed up and spat out by the political process.
July 23, 2008
Find out why not to vote for McCain
April 25, 2023
DFM's journalistic stories are fun to read and better than his short stories.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews