marshall tito. in mexico, he signed and agreement to combat drug trafficking. in canada, he signed the great lakes environmental agreement. in china, he talked peace with mau. in the soviet union, the nuclear arms agreement became a reality. president nixon's travels represent a new foreign policy for the united states. a policy that calls for the self-reliance of our al lis and peaceful negotiations with our enemies. all for a single purpose. world peace. but there are still places to go and friends to be won. that's why we need president nixon. now more than ever. >> bob, we turn to you. >> of one of the findings from darrell's own study of tv ads, which is that republicans were more likely to do ads about international issues and foreign policy than democrats were. now, here, clearly, nixon is

taking a situation in which there's a lot of division in the country, a lot of people are upset and trying to move from the domestic controversies out into the wider world, where suddenly, he is leading all the american people, he's the leader of the free world, pointing to genuinely great accomplishments like the opening to china. but in general, relying about as heavily as you can with the proper of a passport, on the power of the presidency, the stature of the presidency, which we also saw in his earlier ad as vice president, he had a booming voice saying, "ladies and gentlemen, richard m. nixon, the vice president of the united states." nixon, once again, is stressing authority and the trappings of authority as a reason to vote for him again. >> i think one of the most fundamental decisions any candidate has to face, especially in running for president, is if you are going

to campaign or domestic or foreign policy. now, kind of the conventional wisdom is that voters make up their minds generally on economic considerations. but occasionally, you have leaders that come along, see a particular advantage in advertising their credentials on foreign policy. nixon in '72 had just opened up china, had some foreign policy successes. he saw that as a clear asset for him, so, he's basically saying, hey, i am really strong on foreign policy compared to my democratic opponent. >> okay, christopher, it is trivia time. the question is, was unemployment higher in 1980 when ronald reagan defeated jimmy carter, or 1984, when he was running for re-election. >> i'm going to say that it was higher in '80. >> you're wrong. it was actually higher in 1984. but things started to turn around. they went up to a high of 10% in 1982. it was 7.1% in 1980.

it was about 8% or 8.5% in 1986, but it was on its way down in the fall of 1984, which led to this genre of ads, morning in america. let's watch and get your reaction, christopher. >> it's morning again in america. today, more men and women will go to work than ever before in our country's history. with interest rachlts at about half the record highs of 1980, nearly 2,000 families today will buy new homes. more than at any time in the past four years. this afternoon, 6,500 young men and women will be married. and with inflation at less than half of what it was just four years ago, they can look forward with confidence to the future. it's morning again in america. and under the leadership of president reagan, our country is provider and strong earl and better.

why would we ever want to return to where we were, less than four short years ago? >> so, christopher, no question, just your comment, your reaction to that spot if. >> my comment, my reaction to that spot is, i think it's a really strong presentation by an incumbent president, you know, coming into something, an economy that wasn't perfect and being able to point the economic indicators, say, youimproving, this, look at that. the use of the, you know, cheesy music and the raising of the american flag was pretty strong. i think ultimately it's the kind of ad that obama wishes he could air right now, being able to say, unemployment is down, things are greater, it's morning in america, do you really want to go back. i don't think it's been as perfect as he would like it to be, but if he could, i'm sure he would like to air something like that. >> darrell west, ronald reagan won 49 states in 1984. why was that ad so effective?

>> it was effective because the trend line on the economy was going in the right direction. i mean, as christopher was suggesting in his reaction, it's often not the objective number, but the direction of the improvement that matters the most. and so, even though the economy still had weak points in 1984, the trend line was up. gdp growth was in the 4% to 5% range, and so obama would be able to run that type of ad today but the economy isn't that strong. we're talking about gdp growth in the 2.5% to 3% range, so, you know, it's starting to move in the right direction but not quite at the same magnitude of the level that we saw under president reagan. >> bob, i'm going to come back to you, but let me first show another of that variation of ads from 1984, ronald reagan coming to visit your hometown. let's watch. >> on a friday, just a few weeks ago, the barbershop closed three hours early.

the mill shut its doors at noon. and all across the state, people were taking time out for something special. a train, carrying the 40th president of the united states. and bringing with it a new spirit of accomplishment and optimism and pride. because in the past three and a half years, things have been looking up in the country. today, the economy is up. taxes and inflation are down. americans are working again and so is america. so, while some folks might have come so they could tell their grandchildren they saw president reagan, most of them just stopped by to say thanks. president reagan. leadership that's working. >> bob, your reaction. every time i watch that ad, i have to of la, because the train doesn't stop. he's just waving to the crowd

and the train keeps on going. but it has that same music, that same feel as morning in america. bob? >> i haven't seen this before and it is, in the warm and fuzzy category, almost up there with morning in america. i would say, one thing, with regard to unemployment being higher, the thing that people were really afraid of a few years earlier, was not so much unemployment as inflation. we had so called stagflation. so, the decline of inflation, which reagan managed to get down with the help of the fed, causing a recession by stopping the money flow, did help to resurrect the economy and he could run on basically peace and prosperity. in terms of using your authority as president, it's interesting. we saw nixon, looking at his passport, a tight shot, you saw nothing but the passport, and hearing about his

accomplishments. reagan, you just see him waving in the distance. he doesn't have to say what his accomplishments are, he can point to the cheering crowds. and i think that sort of drawing in the warm feeling of america, is a reminder from the '70s to '80s, people did feel better about america and america's role in the world. there was a lot of self-doubt. jimmy carter called it malaise in the 1970s. and i think these commercials both really tapped very effectively into the change of the american mood. >> we're talking a darrell west, the author of "air wars," coming out in its sixth edition. one of the massage from your book is that the ads need to reflect the times. obvious point, but if you can elaborate on that. >> it's important to keep that in mind because a lot of people think you can advertise anything and basically persuade the people that people are kind of stupid, it's easy to manipulate and mislead them.

but when you look at the history of campaign advertising, often times, the most effective ads play into some public value or public opinion that is out there. it's hard to create that value through advertising if it doesn't already exist. and so the effective ads really kind of rest on public opinion research to find what it is the public is worried about, what they are afraid of, fears and concerns and then develop a message that plays into those beliefs. >> ariel and casey, i'm going to turn to you now. different version of morning in america which came out in 1984, bill clinton running as the candidate in 1992 and trying to pick up on that theme. let's watch. >> it's morning in tennessee. but for 650 people who once worked here, there are no jobs. the sportswear factory closed and moved overseas. >> we were just family. it was a good place to work. >> it just hurts down to the heart.

>> it didn't have to happen. as "60 minutes" reported, the bush administration used your tax dollars to lure this factory to move to el salvador. tax incentives, low interest loans. >> that sign means nothing, really. not in the government is going to take it away from you. >> how can i buy made in the usa when i'm drawing unemployment? >> in the last four years, we lost tens of thousands of textile jobs, many here in the south. george bush is using your tax dollars to have that happen. clinton/gore, for people, for a change. >> i'm going to turn to casey foster. your comment or reaction to that ad? >> i thought it was kind of a different kind of ad. it seemed really personal. there was a lot of use of the word "your" in a lot of individual testimonies in the ad, which is something i don't think that i've really witnessed

in current political ads. >> and ariel, what do you think? >> i actually also saw that it was more of a negative outlook on the morning in america and kind of instilled fear. people tend to thrive on negativity and they use the every day american as the show, like, instead of giving the stair owe typical end of the world scenario, nuclear war, they seem to show you a more hits at home type of thing, it's more realistic, it shows american people losing jobs. >> two good points. darrell west? >> i think that are both picking up on an important point. in 199 1992, we had been in a serious recession. there was a thought that george bush didn't get it. one of the strong points as clinton both as a campaigner and you see it in this ad is the ability to feel the pain. you know, he had very authentic mes sjengers for that message by

going to that town and finding people who had been hurt by this plant that got closed and the jobs moved overseas. >> and the other factor, bob, it's very difficult, after three terms in office, for any party to have a fourth term. that's really what george herbert walker bush faced in 1992. >> yeah, it's tough just to get to the second term, but to get to a fourth term is particularly hard, it was very difficult for the bush people to put together effective ads. as you saw, that ad, the clinton campaign ran, was a good example of matching the ad to the candidate. you had, as your students said, individual testimony and clinton, ever since he helped save his campaign in the primaries by going on talk shows, phil donahue, walking into the crowds with a microphone and talking one-on-one with people, had established that feeling of '

empathy. i think that was his strong suit. and this ad wasn't simply done to make a point in general, it was done to match the candidate's message and match the candidate's personal style. and it's not bad to remind people that that's one of the things that you do with these ads. it's not going to be effective if you have what looks like a strong ad but people don't connect it to the candidate. you have to have an integrated message, so that what your candidate is saying and what your ads are saying, both fit together and that's much harder to do these days as indeme dent groups are running so many ads, that's one of the difficulties candidates face. >> candidates changing their views on opinion, that's going back to the dames of george washington, you change or evolve, but they have all become political fodder for advertisings ladvertisin advertising. let me go to bill clinton and both sides of the issue, this from the bush campaign.

>> presidential candidate on the left stood for military action in the persian gulf while the candidate on the right agreed with those who opposed it. he says he wouldn't rule out term limits while he says he's personally opposed to term limits. this candidate was called up for military service, while this one claims he wasn't. one of these candidates is bill clinton. unfortunately, so is the other. >> there is a simple explanation for why this happened. >> so, lynnwood, let me go to you first. the compare and contrast ad, which we have seen in the last 30 to 40 years. >> well, i mean, i think it's very strong ad, it's a very good idea to call people out on them flip-flopping issues because people general little do not like people that flip back and forth. you see this when a person switches party, there are a lot of times, that's really not taken too well. and you have to question

somebody's, you know, morals and, you know, question why they flip-flop and wonder if they truly believe what they're saying or if they are just saying what needs to be said to get elected. >> i mean, this is one of the most effective ads, when you can take what a candidate said at one point in time and show that the position has shifted. it's a way to make that individual look unprincipled, not having firm values, not really being a strong leader and so we've certainly seen lots of evidence of that. there's going to be plenty of that goes on in this campaign, mitt romney certainly has changed his views on a number of different issues, but this is, like, as american as apple pie, you know, we've seen this throughout american history. >> and yet, i'm going to ask you to react to this next ad. i think this was one of the most effective ads in terms of showcasing a difference of opinion on one side of the issue to another by the bush campaign

and really resonated in the 2004 campaign. let's watch and i'm get your reaction. this is from 2004, the george w. bush campaign. it's called wind surfer. >> in which direction would john kerry lead? kerry voted for the iraq war. 0 posed it. supported it and now opposes it again. he bragged about voting for the $87 billion to support our troops before he voted against it. he voted for education reform and now opposes it. he claims he's against increasing medicare premiums but voted five times to do so. john kerry. whichever way the wind blows. >> so, terra, what do you think? >> i think it is really effective. he's flip-flopping and the republicans tend to do that a lot and it certainly worked. >> absolutely. very effective. but what makes it very effective was not just kind of safing that someone is a flip-flopper and has been inconsistent, but the visual imagery of the wind surfing with kerry, you know,

those were actual images of him out in the bay doing that, often times, if you can combine a message with visual imagery that reinforces it, that makes for a very powerful combination. the thing that's really unusual about this, often times in attack ads, they have this dark and forbidding music behind it. this ad had this very uplifting music that was attached to it and so you had an attack ad with pleasant sounding music. unconventional, but still very effective. >> let's go to george mason university and bob lichter. >> that's the classic flip-flop ad. as darrell says, it also takes people back to the controversy over john kerry going out wind surfing, which if you want to be a manly american presidential candidate, you know, you play football, you play baseball, you don't go out wind surfing. that's what intellectual snobls

do. that's the message that the republicans used to tie it to john kerry. but i agree with darrell. this is very unusual. and i think is so effective, because it's light and, of course, it relies on humor. and some of the very best ads have always done that. >> absolutely. you know, it's -- the humor, the music, the visual imagery, when you look at what makes an ad effective, often times, those are winning ingredients. if someone just came out, said, john kerry is a flip-flopper. that would not have nearly the emotional relevance and the p persuasive power that we saw in this particular ad. >> and we were told by people on the kerry campaign that he was told not to goal out wind surfing and of course, somebody from the bush campaign watching for that moment to take those pictures. >> yes, and that kind of reinforces, you know, the point wet were discussing earlier. there's no invisibility anymore. if you are in the middle of a presidential campaign, you

decide to go out wind surfing, you should not assume it's going to be a silent action that nobody is going to see. >> let's go to the 2008 campaign, two of the more well, more popular ads, if you want to call them that, from that campaign with barack obama and john mccain, ads that are still being talked about today. >> something's happening in america. in small towns and big cities, people from every walk of life ewe nifting in common purpose. barack obama. endorsed by warren buffett and colin powell, a leader who will bring us together. >> we can choose hope over fear and unity over division. the promise of change over the power of the status quo. that's how we'll emerge from this crisis, stronger and more prosperous as one nation and as one people. i'm barack obama and i approve this message. >> he's the biggest celebrity in the world. but is he ready to lead? with gas prices soaring, barack

obama saying no to offshore drilling. and says he'll raise taxes on electricity? higher taxes, more foreign oil. that's the real obama. >> i'm john mccain and i approve this message. >> the mccain campaigning, we learned this in the book "game change," looking for something to try to jump start, sarah palin was one of those opportunities, this ad was another. >> they understood one of obama's strenltss in 2008 was he was a larger than life figure, he had become a real celebrity, he was a gifted orator, had a compelling personal story. in politics you try and take someone's greatest strengths and turn it into a negative. basically saying, yeah, the guy's a celebrity, he talks a really lead, does he have the experience? so that was part of the way that they tried to turn around the

campaign, although obviously it was unsuccessful. >> let me turn to my students. cynthia and caesar seated next to each other at the washington center. your reaction to either the obama campaign ad or the john mccain ad? approximate i really like the obama ad. i like how they compared him to britney spears and paris hilton. y i don't see how they can be used negatively against him but i guess in this case it was used negatively against him. but i think in a way it helped him. >> what about you, caesar? >> seeing britney spears and paris hilton makes you laugh a little bit. because, you know, they're -- well, at least paris hilton's like a pointless celebrity. and obama is this guy who's supposed to change the outlook

of the country. and it kind of just -- at least in my eyes, that mccain ad kind of looks like he's floundering somehow to get some sort of negative thing out to make him look like the better candidate. >> another example on the table. timothy, i'm going to go to you next if i could. one of the ads from the 2008 race, it's again a reminder that you may be voting for john mccain, but guess who's been president for the last eight years. >> i'm barack obama and i approve this message. >> wonder where john mccain would take the economy? look behind you. john mccain wants to continue george bush's economic policies. as president he'd provide no tax breaks to 101 million americans. but keep tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas. he wants $4 billion in new tax breaks for big oil and would tax your health care benefits for the first time ever. look behind you.

we can't afford more of the same. >> so timothy, let me turn to you. >> well, i think that that ad was definitely in line with barack obama's message. and it was all about change. and when people see both mccain and george w. bush paired up, definitely sends the wrong image. and it was definitely effective to a very large degree. >> and the tactic that is no stranger to your research, looking back at what humphrey or what nixon tried to do with humphrey's race in 1968, what reagan did with carter in 1980, what dukakis tried to do in 1988 against reagan. >> you always try and tie your opponent to an unpopular figure. in 2008, george w. bush's approval ratings were low. people thought the country was headed in the wrong direction. there was a lot of unhappiness with the iraq war policies. so obama tried the strange of tying mccain to bush.

then at the same time, in his own ads, he's saying, hey, i've been endorsed by warren buffett and colin powell. colin powell is a republican. and so it's a way to, when you kind of look at those three ads taken together, on the one hand you're tying mccain to an unpopular figure, george bush, while also saying, hey, leading republicans support me, warren buffett, one of the most successful businesspeople in the world, also supports me. >> in the flurry of television ads, you don't often remember most of the ads. but some you do. and this is one that people, again, four years later, still refer to as kind of a benchmark for the hillary clinton campaign. let's watch. it's called 3:00 a.m. >> it's 3:00 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. but there's a phone in the white house and it's ringing. something's happening in the world. your vote will decide who answers that call. whether it's someone who already knows the world's leaders, knows the military, someone tested and

ready to lead in a dangerous world. it's 3:00 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. who do you want answering the phone? >> i'm hillary clinton and i approve this message. >> so bob, let me turn to you, your reaction to that ad? it did help the hillary clinton campaign, at least for a while in the spring of 2008. >> and it's an instance of how the persuasive appeal of ads changed over the years. you think back, one of the big themes of the nixon campaign in 1960, he was running against john kennedy, easily a one-term senator who was young, looked young, and one of the nixon campaign's themes was, he's inexperienced. i've been abroad, i'm a world leader, this guy, who knows. and he basically said it. these days, you create a little scenario. you create a little story. and at the end of the story

you've gotten your message across without ever having to hit people over the head. i think people are now used to this more indirect light storytelling appeal. and that's an instance of -- or that's an incident of both how the same appeal is made in different ways over time and i think of how the audience has changed in the way that it responds. >> let me turn to student questions. and bob, let's stay with you and george mason if any of your students have a question for darrell west. >> all right. chris. >> given that there seems to be -- we've seen polls that have shown a general consensus within the public for a dislike of overall negative campaigns, what is the actual value and effect of negative ads, you know, if they are effective, what makes

them so effective? >> chris, that's an important point. certainly any public opinion survey that i've ever seen shows the public does not like negative-style campaigning. they don't like attack ads. but then the problem is there's a lot of evidence that those ads actually work. even though people say they don't like that style of discourse, people actually tend to remember negative information longer than they do positive. so we can all cite examples of attack ads that were very effective for a particular candidate. if you can attach negative information to your opponent, especially as that individual is getting known, that can be a winning formula for winning the campaign. >> and this is probably a good way to weave in these two ads, chris, to your point, and darrell west's point b. a positive ad by the mccain campaign in 2008 and a very quick response by the obama campaign. let's watch. >> the original mavericks. he fights pork barrel spending.

she stopped the bridge to nowhere. he took on the drug industry. she took on big oil. he battled republicans and reformed washington. she battled republicans and reformed alaska. they'll make history. they'll change washington. mccain/palin. real change. >> i'm john mccain and i approve this message. >> they call themselves mavericks. whoa. truth is, they're anything but. john mccain is hardly a maverick, when seven of his top campaign advisers are washington lobbyists. he's no maverick when he votes with bush 90% of the time. and sarah palin's no maverick either wide receiver she was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it. politicians lying about their records? you don't call that maverick, you call it more of the same. >> darrell west, what's interesting is that ad by the obama campaign was out within 24 hours of the mccain campaign.

>> today, candidates can turn things around very quickly with the advances in editing and production values. and so what mccain was trying to do was he understood his best feature with the general public was the idea that he'd been an independent-minded republican, he had supported campaign finance reform when virtually everyone else in his party opposed it. and so he's basically saying, hey, if you don't like the status quo you should go for me because i'm a maverick. the obama response is interesting. because the best way to discredit a maverick is to say, this person says he or she is a maverick, here hypocriticahypoc then point out a variety of other ways in which they voted with the party or done conventional things. anything that you can use to undermine that public image of the maverick can become a winning formula. >> let me go to anna hall who has a question from the washington center. anna? >> you just mentioned that we can get information turned around really quickly