Bush vs. Clinton vs. Perot

Four years after easily defeating Michael Dukakis, George H.W. Bush had to defend his record as president in the 1992 campaign. In the area of foreign policy, he could point to the tremendous success of the Persian Gulf War and to the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. But the issue on the minds of most American voters was the economy, which had entered a recession as the presidential campaign got underway. Challenging Bush's economic record were not one but two well-financed candidates: Democratic nominee Bill Clinton and independent businessman Ross Perot.

The Clinton campaign -- which featured a sign at campaign headquarters declaring "It's the economy, stupid!" -- produced a series of straightforward ads attacking Bush's economic record and laying out the highlights of Clinton's economic program. To convey his ability to relate to the average American voter, and especially to younger voters, Clinton appeared in a number of unconventional television formats, including MTV and "The Arsenio Hall Show." In contrast to Clinton's politically sophisticated television campaign, Ross Perot used his personal wealth to purchase 30-minute blocks of network airtime to show off his homespun campaign personality. Perot made ample use of charts and graphs in an "infomercial" style to communicate his economic message and to help increase voter participation. Pounded by the combined attacks from Clinton and Perot, the Bush campaign had trouble addressing the economic concerns of the American voting public, and Clinton won the 1992 election with just 43 percent of the popular vote.

By watching Bush's "Federal Taxes" ad, Clinton's "Milwaukee" ad, and Perot's "Trickle Down" ad on "The Living Room Candidate" site, you can compare the efforts of the three candidates in the 1992 campaign to appeal to working-class Americans. Which one do you find to be the most persuasive, and why?