I feel like I missed something editing this latest piece for The Naked Campaign.
Somehow it doesn't have the grand build up that the story wants. Maybe it was a case of too many square pegs and nothing but round holes.
It also shows how even a little resistance can prevent and editor or a director from letting an idea blossom. In this case, this proposition contends that McCain's campaign signifies the death of the "gods" of the Republican Party -Reagan, Gingrich, Bush.
Let's accept this statement, even with reservations (1. The Reagan Myth hasn't died, it's being incorporated in to the legend of our next Great Communicator. 2) McCain relied on the radical Gingrich Revolution to both purge himself of past transgressions and as foil to hang his "maverick" hat against. 3) Bush is disliked by nearly 80% of America, including Republicans.) .
The issue then arises, "how true is the thesis of the film?". It may be true three weeks from now, but at this moment its awful premature to declare the light at the end of this long campaign tunnel to be the dawning of a new era.
So it was like editing a hypothetical.
I still think it's a pretty good little film, but I failed to really ramp up the momentum and drive it home.
Compare this to our send off of Hillary Clinton. That piece is a little more elegiac, more lilting in remembrance of her career -but ultimately more scathing. Is this because it was a film that reported something that actually happened (even though she would continue her campaign for a couple weeks)? Is it because she's a concrete figure and it's easier for a person to drift into the sunset than it is for an idea? Maybe the loathing for Senator Clinton runs deeper than the pity for Senator McCain and his inept, cynical campaign?