Talk Show Campaigns

Michael Parkin

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781135911522
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Over the past twenty years, presidential candidates have developed an entertainment talk show strategy in which they routinely chat with the likes of Oprah Winfrey, David Letterman, and Jon Stewart. In fact, between 1992 and 2012, there have been more than 200 candidate interviews on daytime and late night talk shows with nearly every presidential candidate—from long shot primary contender to major party nominee—hitting the talk show circuit at some point during the campaign.

This book explores the development of the entertainment talk show strategy and assesses its impact on presidential campaigns. The chapters mix detailed narrative with extensive empirical data on audiences, content, viewer reaction, and press coverage to explain why candidates have embraced this strategy and the conditions under which these interviews are most likely to meet their expectations. The book also explores how these interviews can enhance campaigns by connecting a critical segment of the voting population with candidates who provide useful political information in a casual setting. Talk Show Campaigns shows that this is more than a gimmick—it's a key part of how candidates communicate with voters, which reveals a lot about how campaigns have changed over the past two decades.

1 The Entertainment Talk Show Strategy

Bill Clinton’s 1992 appearance on The Arsenio Hall Show changed the nature of American presidential campaigns. Plagued throughout the primaries by sagging poll numbers and a media narrative focused on scandal, Clinton entered the general election as an embattled candidate seemingly destined to lose his bid for the White House. In fact, by early June, Clinton was in third place, trailing both incumbent president George H.W. Bush and upstart independent candidate Ross Perot.¹

Clinton’s advisors decided that an unconventional stop at The Arsenio Hall Show might help his chances. It would be risky, however, as presidential candidates were not in the habit of appearing on entertainment television, and ratings for Hall’s syndicated program lagged behind most other talk shows at the time.² Clinton could come across appearing desperate and unpresidential. What would voters and the media think of a major party candidate sitting down with a comedian known more for his style than his political intellect? Still, the campaign thought that an interview on a some-what obscure late night show might allow them to showcase their candidate’s personality, charm, and empathy to a distinctly different kind of audience. It might help change his image from “slick Willie”—the disparaging description created by Clinton’s opponents and embraced by some in the media— to one of a caring and intelligent politician with the country’s best interests in mind. At the very least, it might generate some excitement and get the media talking about something other than the Governor’s personal life.³

Clinton wore wayfarer sunglasses and a brightly colored tie as he opened the June 3 episode of The Arsenio Hall Show with a saxophone rendition of Heart Break Hotel.⁴ After the monologue, the candidate and the comedian moved to cushy chairs where they exchanged lighthearted pleasantries and talked about the music industry. Clinton spoke of his love of rock n’ roll, leading Hall to ask him whether he preferred the “young” or “old” Elvis stamp that had been released by the U.S. Postal Service. Clinton said he favored the “young Elvis” stamp because when Elvis got old, “he got fat like me.”

The conversation quickly turned to more substantive issues, including widespread political apathy and the Los Angeles race riots that had occurred just a few months prior. When asked if he understood why the riots happened, Clinton invoked an empathetic tone and talked about going to meet with people in South Central Los Angles to discuss the issues. According to Clinton, the 1992 election was about “reconnecting more folks to the American dream. Making them feel like they’re a part of our community. Making them feel that tomorrow can be better than today.” Clinton and Hall also discussed Ross Perot’s assertion that as president he would not hire homosexuals or people who had cheated on their spouses. Clinton dismissed the idea and proclaimed the need for diversity and tolerance because “we’re all in this together.”

When Hall asked about the economy and Clinton’s plan to raise taxes on the rich, Clinton teased, “Yeah, you’ll have to pay more if I win,” before launching into a nearly four-minute explanation covering, in detail, the economic relationship between taxes and a host of issues including education, infrastructure improvements, deficit spending, income inequality, and even gangs and crime. His response was a lesson in political economy and the role of government programs in helping those less well off. Despite the nature of the venue, Clinton was not afraid to talk about policy and the issues he seemed to care so much about.

Hall took the opportunity to address more intimate matters as well. He asked Clinton about his personal faults, but instead of confronting the salacious stories that had dogged him for months, the candidate took an easier path, claiming that he was an overly optimistic workaholic who “sometimes work[s] hard instead of smart.” Clinton also tried to explain his admission that he had smoked marijuana when he was younger but that he “didn’t inhale.” “I took it and I tried to smoke it, just like a cigarette, but I’d never smoked a cigarette before,” he explained with a chuckle. “I gave an honest answer. . . . But I got beat up about it because everybody thought I’d calculated this answer. . . . Maybe I should be more calculating than I am, but you folks are never gonna get good politicians—really good public officials—if all you want is somebody that calculates every word they say.” The audience applauded Clinton’s candor and his subtle criticism of how presidential campaigns had come to operate. He was clearly winning them over with a mixture of personal and political deftness.

Hillary Clinton then joined the conversation for its final minutes, speaking about her relationship with Bill, her role in his campaign, and her feelings toward Gennifer Flowers—the woman who claimed to have had a 12-year affair with her husband. Mrs. Clinton simply noted that Flowers had “lots of problems.” The three then engaged in another detailed discussion of race, crime, and gangs in which the Governor listed a number of potential anti-crime programs before concluding, “we’ve got to change lives from the outside in and from the inside out, and there’s no simple strategy. The government can do some things, but people on the street have to do others.” The audience erupted in applause as Clinton put the finishing touches on a masterful performance.

Bill Clinton’s interview on The Arsenio Hall Show was groundbreaking. Candidates had dabbled with entertainment television in the past (e.g., Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy on The Tonight Show Starring Jack Paar in 1960), and there had been other candidate interviews on more formal shows earlier in the 1992 campaign (e.g., Larry King Live, Meet the Press), but this appearance was decidedly different. Clinton was the first presidential candidate to unabashedly embrace and effectively utilize the entertainment talk show strategy. His appearance would become the most cited in future reports, and it showed other candidates, voters, and those in the media how this unorthodox venue could be used to great effect.⁵ As such, it added a new page to the communications playbook for presidential candidates who are always looking for ways to connect with voters.⁶ Clinton showed how the alternative medium could be used to promote his “human” side while speaking directly to voters in plain language about the key issues of the day. As reporter Joseph Hayden would later recall, “What Bill Clinton realized in 1992 was that soft-news exposure was just as helpful to his campaign as hard-news exposure; that being seen and heard were more important than being written about; and that television contact with ordinary citizens in low-key situations was more profitable than regular meetings with ‘professional’ journalists.”⁷

Not everyone was impressed with the new tactic, however. Some, including Clinton’s opponent, George H. W. Bush, questioned its place in presidential politics. Bush’s press secretary, Torie Clarke, called the interview “embarrassing,” adding “He looked like a sad John Belushi wannabe. . . . I don’t think most Americans want to see their president wearing a goofy tie and sunglasses and blowing on a saxophone, and then talking about smoking pot with a late-night TV host.”⁸

Some in the media establishment were also taken aback, as they “saw the joking and the saxophone playing and thought, ‘this is not how a presidential candidate is supposed to act’.”⁹ Barbara Walters asked, “Am I such an old fogey that I thought that it was undignified? I mean, there is something about a presidential candidate with his shades on, playing the saxophone that is endearing on the one hand, but not very dignified.”¹⁰ Presidential advisor and political commentator David Gergan added, “If you were young, you probably thought that was hip and a cool thing to do, you’re with it, but for someone like me, you know, to come out there with the shades and to play the saxophone . . . come on now, if you really want to be elected President, let’s be serious.”¹¹ The Washington Post’s Jonathan Yardly echoed these sentiments, asking “Is this how the presidency is to be won in 1992: in confessional pleas to the priests of pop?”¹²

Clinton’s team immediately defended their decision. Communications Director George Stephanopoulos argued that Clinton showed voters that “he’s a real person just like they are, that he loves music, that he loves to laugh at himself—and that he has a good idea of where to take the country.”¹³ Media consultant Mandy Grunwald added, “We were trying to explain that this was a person, not a caricature like the cartoons in your newspaper, but a person who has a life. . . . I think explaining who you are is not unpresidential.”¹⁴

Some in the press seemed to side with the campaign. The Washington Post’s David Maraniss proclaimed the appearance a “lesson in how to electioneer in the brave new world of American politics.” He recalled the impressions of those covering Clinton’s campaign: “There is a general feeling among scribes on the back of the plane that history must have been made somewhere during the show, but with so many moments to choose from, the ultimate new age moment is open to debate.”¹⁵ The National Journal’s George Condon later praised the interview: “When Clinton doffed the shades and sat down with Hall, the two had perhaps the most candid and interesting discussion of racism that was seen in the entire campaign. In the wake of the Los Angeles riots that had just occurred, Clinton talked about ‘reconnecting with the American community’ and said ‘those folks are invisible until they raise hell’.”¹⁶

Ultimately, the interview seemed to help Clinton’s chances in the race. A search of the online news database Lexis Nexis reveals that, in the three weeks following the appearance, there were at least 230 stories devoted to it across national and local newspapers, television news reports, magazines, and radio. Some of the stories included critical commentary, but most were neutral or highlighted Clinton’s ability to mix personal image promotion with down-to-earth policy solutions. The bump in publicity helped Clinton control the media narrative by getting reporters to talk about his strategic innovation rather than his personal foibles.¹⁷ Clinton’s poll numbers also started to rise over the next six weeks. He went from third place before the appearance to leading by the middle of July. There were a number of factors that boosted his numbers—e.g., the Democratic National Convention, Ross Perot briefly dropping out of the race before getting back in—but the interview with Arsenio Hall certainly contributed to his campaign getting on the right track.¹⁸

The Entertainment Talk Show Strategy

The 1992 campaign is widely regarded as the starting point for the entertainment talk show strategy.¹⁹ It created the impression that, “suddenly, the place to be seen for presidential candidates is not Meet the Press or Face the Nation, but sitting with Arsenio Hall, Jay Leno or even Phil Donahue.”²⁰ Although it took a while for other candidates to completely buy in, once they did, the strategy became exceedingly popular. Presidential candidates have since spent the better part of 20 years trying to emulate Clinton’s success by chatting with the hosts of daytime and late night talk shows (e.g., Oprah, The View, The Tonight Show, and The Daily Show ). In fact, between 1992 and 2012, there have been more than 200 candidate interviews on entertainment talk shows with nearly every presidential candidate—from long-shot primary contenders to major party nominees—hitting the talk show circuit at some point during the campaign.

The strategy did not develop in a vacuum, though. It began to take shape as sitcoms and other shows eroded the barrier between politics and entertainment. All in The Family was perhaps one of the most important pioneers in this regard as its main character, Archie Bunker, brought questions of racism, bigotry, and sexism to the fore. Serious political debates crept into America’s living room as Bunker and other fictional characters embodied the divergent opinions and emotions surrounding these issues. This paved the way for shows like Maude to deal with c...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Illustrations
• Acknowledgements
• Series Editor Foreword
• 1 The Entertainment Talk Show Strategy
• 2 Embracing the Talk Show Strategy
• 3 Searching for Hard-to-Reach Voters
• 4 More than a Forum for Lighthearted Banter
• 5 Getting the Word Out and Going for Votes
• 6 Generating Media Exposure
• 7 Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index