WATCH OUT CLINTON! PEROT'S ON THE WAY

It is amazing how quickly the television cameras and newspaper headlines have switched their focus since the elections. With the ascension of Bill Clinton, President Bush has nearly disappeared from sight. Even the threat of an international trade war and the US mission into Somalia have not brought the lame-duck President back to the foreground. Instead, the focus remains on President-elect Clinton, or on those specifically responsible for today's actions: General Colin Powell, for example.

Part of the reason for Bush's disappearance is the result of his resentment of media bias leading up to the election (which he showed stronger immediately after the vote than now), and his desire to make this transition period a smooth one.

A larger reason for the president's media departure is the media's penchant for sticking with the winner. Think of the treatment given to Super Bowl or World Series losers and you will understand what I mean.

But what has happened to that other guy? Ross Perot. Although he was defeated at the polls, it is difficult to call him a loser. More than anyone else in the country he altered the political process this year, and he set a modern record for votes garnered by a third-party candidate.

In addition, as the economy picks up and Clinton soft-pedals his campaign promises for a quick-start economic plan (which, if enacted, would likely derail the recovery), the deficit and the national debt become more important as measuring sticks for the next president. These are issues still more associated with Perot than Clinton.

So where is that other guy?

According to Advertising Age magazine, he is negotiating his return to television next year with his own show, preferably one that offers electronic interaction between him and his show's audience. In other words, remember the electronic town hall meetings Perot promised if he were elected president? Well, if he can work out the deal (and I don't doubt he can), they're on their way.

Here's what he said to Advertising Age:

"In a perfect world, I'd like to have an (hour-long) interactive TV show, so at the end of it people from all over the country would be able to call in, have their votes recorded by congressional district, and then every congressman would have a keen sense of how many people called and what their views were in his district.

"In a less than perfect world, I'd like to continue to bring the American people say, every month or every other month a 30-minute program on `Here's where we are, here's what we need to do, write your congressman.' It would be a 30-minute program where we would discuss the issues before Congress at any given time and then ask each citizen to write his congressman telling him concisely what he thinks he should do."

In the article, Perot explained that he was exploring the relative merits of doing the show on one of the networks, through syndication or on cable. But his remarks indicated that his preference was to be on one of the Big Three (ABC, CBS or NBC), as he felt uncomfortable with cable television's 60 percent subscription rate.

"It's just not right to have the 40 percent with the lower incomes not having a voice," he said. "So that pushes us back to the networks."

Will any of the networks take up Perot on his idea? And, if one does, will his show be a success?

My opinion is that it will be hard for one of the networks not to sign the feisty Texan. His infomercials, albeit during the election season, were a stunning success. In addition, his United We Stand grassroots group represents a ready viewership (kind of like how Rush Limbaugh's radio crowd was there to strongly kick off his TV show). Finally, Perot carries a lot of financial clout. In the network negotiations he can guarantee a certain level of advertising profits, which, if not reached, he can make up out of his own pocket.

Altogether, Perot's idea is fascinating. Not only would he maintain national visibility through an interactive TV show, but he will be able to broaden his powerbase. And not only through the visibility of his show; interactive TV could also allow Perot to track and store information about each person who calls in.

Such interaction gives Perot valuable data for direct mail campaigns or for another run at the presidency or both.

Undoubtedly, the networks are thinking about this as well, and the issue will come up in their negotiations. My expectation is that they will want to control the data learned about callers themselves, with the final result being that Perot and the chosen network will share the information.

Of course, Perot is no Rush Limbaugh. He's unpredictable, which can be fun. But he's not always entertaining. Maybe his show will flop.

If it doesn't, however, it may soon come to represent media activism at both its best and worst. There would be something ironic in that.

One thing for sure, though, is that Perot won't allow the television cameras and newspaper headlines to ignore him for long. The same is true about Washington. Watch out Congress! Watch out Clinton! Perot's on his way.