weeknights this month we're featuring american history tv programs as a preview of what's available every weekend on c-span3. tonight, university of mary washington professor william crowley discusses the life and legacy of president thomas jefferson paying particular attention to his words and actions on slavery and race. this talk is from the university's great lives lecture spears. that's at 8:00 p.m. eastern. enjoy american history tv this week and every weekend on c-span3. the first presidential campaign ads aired during the 1952 contest between republican dwight d. eisenhower and democrat adlai stevenson. ads have been essential to every presidential campaign since. here is a look. ♪ ike for president, ike for

president ♪ ♪ let's get in step with the guy that's hep, get in step with ike ♪ ♪ everybody likes for ike for president ♪ ♪ you like ike, i like ike, everybody likes ike ♪ ♪ hang out the banner, beat the drum, we'll take ike to washington ♪ow is >> now is the time for all good americans to come to the aid of their country. i am so glad we s again, bob. ike.

bob. i'm so glad we're friends again, bob. ike, we agree on everything. >> let's never separate again, bob. >> never again, ike.>> ike >> bob. >> ike. >> bob. >> ike. >> will ike and bob really live happily ever after?or a m is the white house big enough for both of them? stay tuned for a musical interlude. ♪ reuben, i've been thinkin' a'' a joint production of american history tv on c-span3 y and c-span's washington journal. we're pleased to be joined by professor robert mann, professor of communications at louisiana state university and author of "daisy petals and mushroom her?

clouds." for a look at tv advertising.: a thanks for joining us. >> good to be with you this morning. >> we start with 1952, the first year television was used as a medium for political ads.le bit >> yeah, television had been ste used d a little bit in 1948 to a broadcastrr to the democratic convention. harry truman made a speech fromi new jerseyn at the latter partr the raceigin inal 1948 and was on a regional television linkup. u saw candidates advertising in a way that was not just a beach. even though we are going to see a lot o 1952 was the first time you saw candidates advertising in a way that was not a speech. we saw spots, these 30, 60-second spots, it's important to remember at the beginning that 1952, 1956, 1960, the

candidates still saw television as a way to give speeches. so in 1952, for example, even though adlai stevenson, the democratic nominee, and dwight eisenhower, the republican nominee, were airing some spot advertising, the vast majority of people who were seeing them or at least certainly with stephenson, were seeing them give 30-minute speeches. stephenson gave 18 30-minute speeches 10:30 at night on tuesdays and thursdays in the latter part of the campaign. and both candidates were very reluctant to do this kind of spot advertising. they saw politics as being more dignified. they saw spots as the way you sell soup, soap, and cereal, not lofty political ideas. >> and we are going to see a lot of spots, a lot of ads in the next hour and a half here with professor bob mann from lsu. we welcome your calls and your comments and questions.

and ads that are particularly notable for you. we have a line for republicans and democrats. and independents. so it's fair to say that both candidates in 1952, eisenhower and stevenson, had to be pushed to do advertising, correct? >> yeah, so there was an advertising executive who is fairly prominent, fairly famous for his innovations at the time, ross reeves, he was hired by the eisenhower campaign to manage their advertisements. at the time eisenhower and his people thought it would be speeches. reeves looks at one of eisenhower's speeches, i think it was his announcement speech earlier in the campaign and came to the conclusion, made two major conclusions, that eisenhower was a terrible

speaker, and that these 30-minute speeches were too complex, too long, people left the speech without having a single idea of what it was about, it was just a jumble of issues. he persuaded eisenhower to do the spot advertising and the major way that people were seeing eisenhower's spots was not this animated spot, this jingle you just saw, which was interesting and a lot of people enjoy watching it because it sort of recognizes the first political spot, but most eisenhower spots were these 20-second eisenhower answers america spots where eisenhower would just look in the camera and answer questions from average people off the street. and eisenhower thought it was humiliating. stevenson thought his spots were a humiliating exercise that really degraded the candidacy and the office of the president. they were both sort of dragged into doing this. >> two questions about the ads we just saw, one, the donkeys in that animated ad for

then-candidate eisenhower, kind of a negative ad in that regard. and two, who is bob in the adlai stevenson? >> okay. so the donkeys of at least in the animation of the door he's? agency >> that we donkeys that in the othering grinding out of backwards gracious as you point out, is sort of a point, sold negative at agate to that is, john fortnight who was at least eight of john spiraling out of, senator kamala bannon in there somehow that asked us running natalie again anderson midway the. secretary of state hundred three men who is much viral my violators and i public and it and adelaide stevenson the of the nominee events in the, other reality. bob and i, i thought and i think if the bob was bob tapper epitaph to. is marcus rather than, the leader of the conservative, the public is senator and serving from al-qaeda silent of trial

attached. ten and it's on tap before than eisenhower landing our staff was his side announcement, opponent for the nomination to negative nomination in 1952 hit to win tariffs. support he winds went out and promised him that he would support taff's his fifth order of, agenda on the founders didn't even get tabloid hatred agenda and taff i'm patronage him. across call that the restaurant are that tech eisenhower. gone and surrendered house hat on and cenotaph is taff now controlling taff the momentum and on the point of spot is that's been at all in love we have found that in past and has captured taff iran's action saying that. power is actually going to hines however the behind the throne if biden hours lieutenant alexander cohen that. >> the kind of look at us and then cloudy things, than us and machinery. the days the look a look at how to. that added to the 1916. for us by the learned and shown ike invading johnson were followed and with adults and the power and water can be a multilateral pain. here is a look.

>> one, tier, over three, four i-four, seen guys, say six, say there. , 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0. [explosion] >> these are the >>,, the, stakes to make a. other or we must die. >> boat for president johnson neither glow each >> other either love each or there are we much time for vote still president. johnson >> all open preferred hasn't johnson and the stakes are too high a home. yet that rainjuvenile delinquen!

crime! riots! . has to say about our lack of moral leadership. >> the leadership of this nation has a clear and immediate challenge to go to work effectively and go to work immediately to restore proper respect for law and order in this land and not just prior to election day either. america's greatness, it's greatness of her people. let this generation been making you mark for the greatness. let this generation of americans said i a standard of this possibility that will inspire the world. >> in your heart, you know he is right. vote for barry goldwater. host: there is a lot of there. start with the daisy ad antenna less the tenor of the times. 1964, why that ad came about -- and tell us the tenor of the

, 1964, and why the add came about. guest: the atmosphere in the country in that time, we were still in the shadow of the cuban missile crisis. we were still armed to the teeth , facing the soviet union which was also armed to the teeth with their weapons. people at the time were really cheerful that the soviet union in the united states, even though the cuban missile crisis had been resolved, that we would still end up going to war and it would not be a conventional land war, it would he a nuclear war that would destroy much of the world. in that environment comes along coldwater, a very prominent leader of the conservative wing of the republican party since the 1950's, republican senator from arizona, who is using a lot of the other close language. when kennedy announces them was -- when kennedy announces them whe -- the loan

shark, he calls nuclear bombs just another weapon. he suggests that we should defol iate the ho chi minh trail in vietnam using nuclear weapons. he made a lot of comments like that a lot of the years that suggested he was reckless and was not serious about the responsibility of being president would it came to using nuclear weapons. so people already knew his position on that. that is why he takes advantage. it is clever because it doesn't mention goldwater. to.idn't need people who created that spot realized all they had to do was give a story and let the viewers do the work. let the viewers fell in the blanks with the information and the knowledge and the emotion spot.hey brought to the that is what makes it so groundbreaking and so clever and i think so effective. .hey put the viewers to work

it didn't give them a lot of information. it assumed they had a lot of information and used that information in a clever way. host: is it correct that the daisy ad only run once on television. >> is only run once on the night of september 7, 1964. were threeys there networks, so probably about 40-50,000,000 people saw that ad the one time it aired. it wasn't unusual to run the spot a couple of times and move on to something else. the spot did air on several network news broadcasts it into in its entirety later week. republican party officials told her to it, so it made news, which ensured it got a free ride in the networks for the next week. i am guessing between 70 and 100 million people saw it by the in of the week. host: it is interesting, we

always associate richard nixon with the law and order campaign. but in goldwater's ad, that is his message. guest: yes. that spot you saw there is a distillation of 30 minutes of a documentary that the goldwater campaign had created called "choice." they planned to air it is a paid political program on national television. goldwater saw it and said it was a racist spots. he spotted from being -- stopped it from being run on national television. it did get one on local television commercials and at house parties. this 32ndned into spot which was trying to take advantage of the anxiety in the public about civil unrest. lyndon johnson had become president on the death of john f. kennedy and was seen by a lot of republicans as having added to the and caused a little moral

degradation of the country area and the civil rights movement, there weren't a lot of protests over the vietnam war at the time . but all this unrest and unsettled environment was growing and conservatives were nervous and scared about it. 's campaign was trying to take advantage of that fear and growing unease with a certain percentage of the population. we are looking at the history of presidential campaign advertising here on american history tv on c-span three, in a joint production with c-span's "washington journal." we will get to your phone calls momentarily. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8002. of your said the american culture was more conservative th.

his observation. guest: from 1952 through 19 64, infancy is the right word to use. doing thiswho were stuff for politicians were really expand menton. they didn't know what they were doing -- they were experimenting. they didn't know what they were doing. today you can hire a company that specializes in producing political spots they, rely on public opinion research and focus groups. they didn't know anything about that. these are mostly technicians producing these spots. they were people who arranged the presentation of a 30-minute there are really people who arranged a presentation of 30 minute speech or fortified minute distillation of a 30 minute speech on the air. it really was not until doyle, the madison avenue firm that got the account to do lyndon

johnson's campaign that true creative advertising principles were brought presidential campaigns. the reason i wrote my book about this is because this really is, to me, the hinge moment in american political advertising when everybody saw, all, this is how it is done, this is how you advertize political ideas. this is how you create spots that are interesting, that are clever, that put the viewers information to work that involve the viewer not just a passive experience and if you look at the spots before 1964 and 1968 and forward, you can see this is the moment in time when everything changes. >> let's hear from our callers. we first got a brand in jacksonville, florida. good morning, you are on with professor mann. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> how are you doing? >> good, thank you. >> i had a question about the modern day presidential

commercials. , you said he ran for president because of the fine people comments by president trump. off rightms to cut after that line spoken that he condemned white supremacists and neo nazis. that is always left out. you know what i'm saying? host: ok, brent. professor mann, what are your observations of modern day 2020 adds, versus what we're seeing 1964?r in 1952 and guest: it is a torrent of ads today and targeted in a way they weren't in those days. 1964, the daisy ad, the goldwater ad we saw was meant to be in mostly on a national television or

the goldwater ad we saw was meant to be seen on national television or in, you know, even then there were certainly swing states, more of them than we have today. but they were just broadcast. they were meant for almost everyone to see them. they were not targeted. today what you see is a much more finally slice and dice electric based on the profiling and political polling that these candidates and our campaigns do. when you see an ad, especially if you see it online, you know, you are just growing through the internet on their website, you see an ad, that is huge an ad that was intended exactly for you, a person just like you. it was not meant for your neighbor. it might not even be meant for your spouse or your children, it was meant for you personally either because of your shopping behavior, buying behavior or registration, where you live. these ads are much more finally targeted to people. it does not mean they always

hit the mark but that is the main -- i think that is -- other than the stylistic differences, that is the main difference in advertising today as opposed to 1964 and before the invention of the internet. >> let's hear from john in mechanics bergh, pennsylvania. good morning. >> thank you for taking my call. i just and curious from doing the research. i remember looking at history in 1961 president kennedy did his speech at the waldorf historian called presidency in the press and then during that same era, he had the edward folks talking about the media and its value to society. both speeches, both of those folks talk about how the media was not used properly to educate the american people about the issues of the day. i am just curious about the speakers thoughts. he has done a lot of research on these political ads. it was -- was kennedy and moral right saying we are not using television to educate but just amuse and entertain? even that in the realm of

political ads, it just seems that that is where we have gotten two as opposed to providing useful, helpful education to the american people. just curious what the guest thinks. >> thanks, john. >> that is a really good question. i would say they were not so much right but there were repression. i think in the early to mid sixties, the advantage that i think -- there was an advantage and disadvantage. you may not have had a lot of access to different sources of news over three major networks. you may be at a couple of local newspapers, some radio news, but there were generally agreed upon facts and every american understood if something happened, every american sort of had the same basic understanding of that. you may think that is good, you may think that is bad, but that was the way it is. where we are now, obviously, and i do not have to labor at this point, but we are totally fragmented society depending on

your political views or your lifestyle, you are getting a news one way, your neighbor is getting his or her news from another way. there is no commonly, widely agreed upon facts about anything and so we are in our silos. we do not talk to each other. we are not hearing the same thing. we are not talking about the same thing. personally, i am not sure that is a good thing but it is what it is. i think kennedy and those were repressed. maybe they saw was coming or maybe they were criticizing something that they did not mean. certainly did not anticipate the internet but here we are. >> let's go to tim in north chicago, illinois. on our independent line. good morning. >> good morning and thank you for c-span and mr. mann. the question has to do with the rules and ethics of political campaigns, presidential campaigns. historically and up until

president day, is very commission or a set of rules that the campaign must follow to make sure campaign ads are done properly or slander? >> excellent question. in the 1960s there was this federal commission, fair election practice commission. there was a nonpartisan commission that did not have a whole lot of teeth to it but it could make some judgments and pronouncements and declare this spot was unfair and, you know, maybe embarrassed a candidate into removing an ad or changing an ad. sort of the prevailing -- the prevailing rules since television had been in a elections commission and the principles and shrine in our law and constitution that the

political speech is the most highly protected form of speech. so, you know, candidates are generally been able to say whatever they want to say in their ads and television stations cannot. this is because of broadcast television. cannot center those. they cannot tell them you cannot say that, that the highly most productive form of speech. candidates are mostly governed by the judgment of the voters and by the people. if i say this, it's not that it is wrong or a legal, it's will the voters react horribly to? will it backfire on me? honestly, that is the main check that candidates and the candidate committee, not third party committees, which are under deferrals but candidates can pretty much see what they want. >> more viewer calls momentarily and some comments and questions on text and twitter in just a moment in this joint production of the history of television campaign ads and presidential races with

professor robert mann but let's move on to two ads from the 1916 campaign. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> it is time for an honest look at the problem of order in the united states. dissent is a necessary ingredient of change. but in a system of government that provides for a peaceful change, there is no cause that justifies resort to violence. let us recognize that the first civil right of every american is to be free from domestic violence. so i pledge to you, we shall have order in the united states.

[laughs] >> first up on the nixon ad, the tagline, vote like your whole world depended on it. that was very reflective of the cold water add, in your heart. you know he is right. very strong statements. >> i love the goldwater statement. i always tell my students, that's a great example that you really ought to focus group your slogan or your tagline because it did not take the did not take five minutes with the rejoinder in your guts you know

he is nuts or in your heart, you know he might. those tagline were really big in those days by yeah, that is a reflection of the sense that republicans and conservatives had that the world was falling apart, crumbling apart. traditional conservatism. this desire for order and lawn order has been a way of expressing that for very long time. >> one observation on that tag on on twitter from cynthia she says, 1964's in your heart you know he is right become suburbs under threat in 2020. on to what is called the laughing man ad and an ad mocking the vice president pick of agony. did people get that out at the time? >> yes and. no i mean it was not like -- it's in the same spirit as the " daisy girl " add. information and voters already

have that they are expected to do some of the work. the agnew of october 1968 in the voters mind was certainly not the agnew of 1974 in voters minds but there were questions about agnew's -- his behavior, his ethics, his morality at the time. agnew was already making some statements that were mildly embarrassing to the republicans and so he was unknown. he was a largely unknown person so it was just a way to ridicule and calling him a lightweight and an unknown. i think that spot probably would've had much more resonance if you ran in 1972 or 1970 for the 1968. >> quick question for you from robert in clearwater, florida who has, how much did a commercial cost back in the fifties and sixties to run?

>> excellent question. it depends because, you know, if you were going to -- depend on what's show you would run it in. a lot of it is dependent on your production caused. i will give you an example that theknow to buy time on mbc to run it for one minute, and probably another $10,000 to $20,000 to produce. i can't imagine what that would be in $2020, but it was not cheap. it still is not cheap to buy one man of time on network television that is why you don't. necessarily -- that is why you don't see a lot of spots. candidates prefer going to local media markets where they can get cheaper time and more efficiency for their money. host: kathy in gainesville, new york, on the republican line. caller: thank you for the trip down memory lane.

looking back, so much has changed since the early days. the media also plays a role in it. news was much less opinions. we just had newspapers and television and radio. of course we just had newspapers then, television and radio. i love the presidential advertisements but i do still keep in mind that there are advertisements. i'm wondering now with social media and everything, how many people do you think are affected by these ads? are they worth the money that it spends on them? has that changed and say the sixties till now or the fifties when they started? >> that is the essential question of all of this, what difference does it really make. i started out with my daisy. the book on the daisy girls spot thanking the spot was the

one that destroyed very cold waters candidacy. it did not. it had very little impact because goldwater was going to lose the race. after that spot aired and after a whole flight of other very rough spots the johnson campaign air toward the month of september. the vase -- the race was virtually unchanged. goldwater was cruising to lose. he did. he lost by a historic margin at the time. i think even today the spots are not as effective or determinative as you might think. what there is three to 5% of the people, the voters out there are undecided. what these candidates are spending hundreds of millions of dollars when many of whom who have not voted at all. most people are kind of impervious to the stuff. candidates and campaign were.

at the local and state levels, statewide races, u.s. senate, governor, congressional races, mayors races, i think they do make a difference because in those cases, many voters do not have a lot of information about the candidates. the newspapers are going out of business, tv stations are covering less and less -- airing less and less political news so a lot of the information that voters get today is not from the media. they get from the campaign commercials. that is a sad fact but i do think they have more impact down the line than they do with the presidential level. >> here is don in our borough, oklahoma. independent line. hi there. >> robert, i am one -- i have several questions here. one thing this ad that biden ran in the last segment about blaming trump for all of the

corona virus, which he did the best he could. he did boast better than biden would've ever done or obama. anyway, he said he re-posted how many empty chairs there isn't tables but i just wonder how many empty chairs are high chairs that democrats were putting at these tables? another thing about the replacement of the supreme court justice. >> don, i'm going to let you go there. we are focusing on the history of presidential campaign tv ads. thanks for your comment. we go to rich lynn, washington. democrats wine for. >> hello? >> hi there. you are on the air. >> good morning. good morning professor. >> good morning. >> when i saw that commercial for it showed me back to when i was seven years old and it's

amazing. it's amazing hell -- not the first part of course but the second part. i always wonder why it was so scared. the other thing i wanted to ask you and i don't know if you can answer it. it seems like during the seventies, late seventies, it did not used to have to be like when johnny carson and all those are the people's used to be on it. didn't one presidential -- when am i trying to say? for i'd say trump and biden were both running, didn't they have to have the same exact time? one could have more time than the other one on tv? >> all right. >> thanks for that, mary. equal time is what i think she is referring to. >> yeah and that is one of the reasons why we do not have debates for a while there between 1960 and 1976 is because that fairness, you

would have to have -- at least lyndon johnson -- he wanted to debate berry gold wallet or so he would insist on third party candidates being on the stage. that was a big factor in politics having politicians on for interviews like on johnny carson. if you are -- a few richard nixon was going to come on, you would have to give equal time to some fashion to you brought humphrey. we do not have that anymore because we recognize that these new organizations can use their judgment and most people are pretty happy with giving media organizations the ability to make that decision and have the federal government impose on both sides. eastern time that they have to be on the air. >> question about the broader issue of advertising from bob in clocks vote, tennessee. it says, good morning, at some point later on, with doctor mann compare the evolution of campaign ads to transit commercial tv ads over the same time?

>> that is a very interesting question and i think they do sort of -- i think that the product advertising always leads the way and i think that is because -- i thought about this a lot and i have decided it's because bars of soap cannot talk back to the advertising executive. politicians can and do and they tend to be -- liberals and conservatives -- tend to be conservative with a small when c it comes to their image. the kind of messages and tactics they are willing to use in their ads, which is why both will adlai stevenson and dwight eisenhower were very hesitant to go on tv and do spot advertising in 1952 because they wanted to be dignified. they do not want to do something that is undignified or boomerangs on them. i think if you want to know

where political advertising is going, sometimes you have to -- you see we're product advertising today, that is may be where political advertising may be in five to ten years. >> we are talking about presidential campaigns, tv advertising with professor mann. and the author of daisy petals a mushroom clouds. american history tv is on every weekend on c-span 3. 48 hours of history and we welcome you to join us on c-span three every weekend. here on washington journal, the cool production as well and let's move on to the year of 1980. jimmy carter running for reelection against ronald reagan. here is a look. >> each day, many people come to the oval office with advice and information. when it comes to decide something, president carter must decide alone. no matter how many advisers and assistance, a president can never escape the responsibility of truly understanding an issue

himself. that is the only way that a presidential decision can be made and the only way that this president has ever made one. president carter was. >> i deeply, deeply resent and am offended by the attacks that president carter has made on my husband, personal attacks he has made on my husband. his attempt to pay my husband as a man he is not. he is not a warmonger, he is not a man who was going to throw the elderly out on the street and cut off their social security. that is a terrible thing to do and to say about anybody. that is campaigning on fear. there are many issues at stake in this campaign. i would like mr. carter to explain to me why inflation is as high as it is, why unemployment is as high it is is. i would like to have him explain the vacillating weak foreign policy so our friends overseas do not know what we

are going to do. whether we are going to stand up for them or whether we are not going to stand up for them. the issue of this campaign is is three and a half year record. >> the time is now for strong leadership. what >> fog mann, my first observation on the jimmy carter rad is it's dark. the room is dark, the ad itself is dark. he got a fair amount of pushback for using the oval office in a political campaign, did he not? >> absolutely. that was not something that was seen then or now as proper using the white house itself as a stage for political -- blatant political spot. trump gets -- president trump gets criticism for the events that he -- campaign events he has held at the white house as if this is the first time it has been done. jimmy carter did it. also there is another spot that carter aired which showed him

on air force one, so we not only use the oval office in that spot. there was a another spot that carter aired in which he is sitting at his oval office desk, appearing to be praying. it is about carter's faith and look why carter was bowing his head at the oval office. this is not exactly -- what we are seeing now is not exactly new in american politics. >> on nancy reagan. first of all i was struck and reminded that she is not just very poised, she was an actress. that was her career. she spoke well on camera, prediction is great but was she the first potential future first lady, spouse, presidential spouse, presidential candidates both to appear nomad one? >> i am not aware of another one. i think she was the first one to appear speaking at an ad. lyndon johnson aired a spot in 1964. it had him standing next to ladybird on the tarmac, returning to the air force base after the assassination of

president kennedy but it is the first time, that i am aware of, that a candidate's wife is actually speaking. not just speaking to talk about how wonderful her husband is but it's a clever, i think, effective use of the candidates wife to attack the other candidates, which kind of softens the blow. here is ronald reagan was campaign saying, jim carter is attacking us, it's unfair. and then she quickly sort of pivots to attacking jimmy carter so what their sense, i think, certainly was that they could be seen as protesting the attacks and attacking back but doing it in a very soft way. nancy reagan, as you say, was an actress. the other thing about that spot i think is effective is she is clearly not reeling from a teleprompter, she is just talking. when you see spots for the candidate well, clearly

conversing as opposed to reading, looking at the camera, reading the teleprompter, i think they are always more effective because they see more authentic and genuine. >> what's more is her message, part of her criticism is a substantive criticism of vacillating foreign policy. she talked with jimmy carter and ignoring our allies interest overseas, which has some reflection of the current tone of the 2020 campaign one. >> that is the thing about these spots. when you start looking at -- you know, going back to eisenhower and the 22nd spots that were run in 1952. go look at those you would be sort of gobsmacked by how the themes from these earlier campaigns were still the themes that we are talking about today. high energy prices, high corruption and government. the degradation of our standing across the world. i mean these were not -- when we are talking about today,

were not old issues. it's the same old clothes, just different people wearing them. >> your call and questions on presidential tv ads. we will go to the phones now to newcastle, delaware. and on the republican line. >> i am calling about joe biden being on television which i am getting so sick of it. i called the comp cable company the other day and i think they should send my money back because all i see and sit down, i am 83 years old, i watch television and all i see is joe biden telling lies. that man tells so much flies. they talk about trump. he talked about his wife getting killed on baby and he was in the hospital and then he found out that one of his sons have cancer. 40 years later. >> to robert in virginia. democrats line. hi there. >> good morning. i am calling because i want to point an ad which is how much

money the going to all these networks in various television stations like that. i mean so much of this money that we are donating to these campaigns is basically we are taking it, giving it to the campaign and the campaign is giving into all these companies. it's a little ridiculous and it's so much money that i feel like there must be a way to do this with some sort of a subtle public type of thing with showtime thing like that one. that is what i have to say. >> okay robert. >> i could not agree more. i could not agree more. i think you are absolutely right. i have not done it this year with one of my classes before years ago i took the ten or so battleground states and looked at what the undecided was oppose in those states and took how much money the campaigns were spending in those states to try to influence that three to 4% that was undecided. you look at the cost per vote. how many hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent to

influence these very small slice of the electorate. many of whom, you know, my philosophy has already been, if you are undecided in the presidential election and as an incumbent running, you are really undecided between the challenger and not voting at all. you have made your mind up mostly about the incumbent. it is. i think campaigns would be smarter to put that money into organizing and field organizing and more direct voter contact into the kind of labor that takes years. there is the problem. most of this money is raised in the last few months of the campaign. they really need it back in april, march, to begin doing the kind of work that you would need to be doing. when you get 10 million dollars dumping your lap three weeks before the election, there is really only one thing you can do and that is put it into advertising. >> a couple of comments here. a comment from michael in portland, oregon who says, i have two of roberts books, walls of joko and daisy petals.

i recommend him to everyone. question, has the guest seen a daisy petals commercial of comparable power in this election or any other since 1964? if not, why not? >> well by power i would argue that the daisy girl spot was powerful, not because it changed a lot of votes, although i think it may solidified some votes against barry goldwater but i think the daisy girl spot was powerful mainly because it changed the way we thought about political advertising. it changed the methods of advertising, a completely revolutionized political advertising so i would say no because, you know, maybe we will see this shortly, the 1984 morning in america spot that ronald reagan ran when he was running for reelection. that spot is comparable in some ways but i would not say it

revolutionize political advertising so no, i'm not sure that there is anything to compare to it. >> you are teeing it up for us right now bob mann. we have that up next. 1984, it starts with the morning in america ad. let's look. >> it is morning again in america. today, more men and women will go to work than ever before in our country's history. with interest rates at about half the record highs of 1980. nearly 2000 families today will buy new home. lower than at any time in the past four years. this afternoon, 6500 young men and women will be married and with inflation at less than half than what it was four years ago, they can look forward with confidence to the future. it is morning again in america and under the leadership of president reagan, our country is prouder and stronger and

better why. would we ever want to return to where we were less than four short years ago when? >> there is a bear in the woods. for some people, the bear is easy to see. others do not see it at all. some people say the bears are tame, others say it's vicious and dangerous. since no one can really be sure who is right, isn't it smart to be as strong as the bear? if there is a bear day? them --u ever let you just look at them and sigh

("teach your children" by crosby, stills, nash) >> going back to morning america, the guy who did that spot i mean, he may have done campbell soup and everything at the time. he was a very familiar voice over guy at the time what's more that spot sort of combine the music in the soft focus, it seemed to have everything that it needed >> yes it did. i think that is just really one of the best spots and i think you could argue, i have not looked at the polling but i think you could argue that spot was truly an effective spot it maybe did not win votes but it certainly confirmed, it was made to confirm the general feeling that people in the united states had at the time that things work better and

were better because of reagan's policies in his idealized view of america, certainly not everyone would've argued that was the state of the country in 1984, but it did sort of summarize these at geist of the time and reinforce people's feelings that things are moving in the right direction. it is such a beautiful spot and goes to what i was saying earlier of these madison avenue techniques. there is a documentary produced a number of years ago that produce that -- compared that's what you would have to add, using some of the exact same images that pepsi was used to advertize its products. that morning in america spot is really the culmination of the marriage between washington, political advertising and madison avenue. >> and the teacher children spot, obviously some echoes of the daisy ad of 1964 but the

use of that song, was this one of the first times that a music, group crosby steals a, nash gave permission for a campaign to use whatever is -- what was then a hit song of theirs? >> yes, i'm not aware of any other spot. i may be wrong about this, but i'm not aware of any other spot that used a very widely recognized popular song. there was other music that was recognizable. nixon's campaign used a lot of music in his spots in 1968 but i think you're right. i think this is the first time that you saw, you, know a popular rock group using its, having its music used in a spot like that. >> let's hear from doug, next up in alaska. go ahead, doug. >> yes, good morning. i was just wondering, was it bill moye or, television journalist strongly associated with developing the daisy ad?

i remember when i first heard i was shocked that the television journalist would be associated with the political party but now it's pretty obvious that most television journalists are not only members of the democratic party but strongly associated with helping the democratic party. >> well, bill moye or's was a top aide, one of the most trusted aides that lyndon johnson had i did not become a journalist until after he left the white house he was tangentially involved in the daisy girl ad. the daisy girl spot was produced by the madison avenue for that is still a prominent advertising firm. they produce that spot, brought in to the white house to show to lyndon johnson and his people, i believe bill moye or was there, and the night that it showed on television, johnson starts getting some phone calls from some friends of his who are reacting to the spot, and some of them reacting

negatively and more years is called to the second floor of the white house were johnson was having dinner with some friends and johnson makes quite a production out of telling, it kind of dressing lawyers down about the spot, and telling him to look into this more years turns, and goes back toward the elevator. lawyer, johnson says moye are follows into the elevator and says, you think we really ought to only want to run it once? i mean, johnson recognize that it was a good spot. mayors did as well. lawyers may have been in on the decision to tell the tb not to air it again, but he had really nothing to do with its creation >>. next up in new prague, minnesota, democrats line. >> hello. >> good morning. >> good morning. yes, i just wanted to comment, i guess i'm old enough to remember how things were back in 1964 and 68 and so forth and

i remember in 64, that add, the daisy ad, it was very effective but it was also really accurate. at the time, goldwater, he was very radical about the use of nuclear weapons. he was also a racist, which people don't bring up, but he was. he voted against the 1964 voting rights act and the civil rights act, of 60, five i have those backwards, actually. but he was unknown racist and the people knew it and it worked in the southern states and many of the people in the democratic party switched parties, the dixie crafts, and aligned with the southern

republicans -- but from that point on, the next go around with nixon and egg new, that particular line about agony, he did have some serious problems and i don't remember all of them now but he was pretty well-known, that is why that ad was so effective back then. >> yes so, to his point about 1964, there was a lot of knowledge in voters minds about gold waters vote on civil rights. it was not a secret. he was one of the few republicans who voted against the 1964 civil rights act and johnson's campaign in the beginning thought they would make the campaign about that, that they began, started looking at the flight of spots they might air at the beginning of september that they would focus on that are in their

polling, their research, they came up with the conclusion that much more effective was americans fear of the nights he's going to war with the soviet union and so what originally was going to be spots attacking goldwater over civil rights became maybe four or five spots that attacked goldwater on the issue of nuclear war, of nuclear proliferation, his opposition to the nuclear test ban treaty. it was in their estimation, and i think they probably were right, it was more effective add, a more effective message to try to put forth because voters were much more aware of where goldwater stood on nuclear war than they were aware of where he stood on civil rights. >> coming here from albert in oklahoma. he says please take into account that many families did not even own televisions in the timeframe being discussed.

what was the, saturation how different is a saturation of tv households in 1952 versus 1980? >> so, in 1952, there were about 50 million homes with televisions in them. there were about 50 million televisions. most homes had one television. by 1964, 68, into the seventies and eighties, every home had a television. it was really total saturation and even today there are people who do not have televisions that don't watch tv. but remember in those days all you had to have was a tv and an antenna. you did not have to pay for cable, so it was a lot easier to see this programming then maybe it is today, there are so many people within rural areas, they do not get the kind of reception, they have to pay for cable. people were not paying for cable in 1964, 1960, eight 1972. but we're glad you're paying

for it now. on american history tv on c-span three, we welcome our viewers are from american history tv and here on washington journal, and 90 to -- a 90 minute special focusing on the history of presidential campaign ads with our guest robert, man mass communication -- mass communication professor from louisiana state university. more of your calls momentarily, but let's move ahead to the 1988 race of george h. w. bush and michael dukakis. >> bush the caucus on crime. bush supports the death penalty for first degree murderers. the caucus not only opposes the death penalty, he allowed first degree murderers to have weakened passes from prisons. one was willie horton who murdered a boy in a robbery, stabbing him 19 times. despite a life sentence, horton received ten weekend passes from prison. horton fled, kidnapped a young couple, stabbing a man and repeatedly raping his girlfriend. weekend prison passes, dukakis on crime george.

>> george bush talks a lot about prison furloughs, but he won't tell you that the massachusetts program was started by a republican and stopped by michael dukakis. and bush won't talk about the thousands of drug king pins furloughed from federal prisons while he led the war on drugs. bush won't talk about this drug pusher, one of his furloughed heroin dealers who raped and murdered a pregnant mother of two. the real story about furloughs is that george bush has taken a furlough from the truth. >> bob mann, who was behind the infamous willie horton had? >> that ad was produced by a third party political organization that was very closely aligned with the republican party ambush campaign called the national security pack. it ran on cable and when it was taken off, it did not run very, long but when it was taken off, the bush campaign immediately went on the air with a bunch --

with a much more polished spot that attacked the whole furlough program in massachusetts under michael dukakis, showed a revolving door, these people going in and out, they look like they're going into a prison in coming out of the prison, and mentioned willie horton. willie horton was not the only figure discussed in that spot, but it was based on the willie horton spot. a lot of people confuse the two. they think that first willie horton spot was a bush ad. it really was not, but it was clear there was some sort of either unspoken or spoken coordination between the two campaigns in producing that, because they were so closely aligned. i think it is fair, though, to say, it is worth pointing out, that willie horton, or at least not willie horton specifically, but the whole furlough program was first raised in the campaign earlier that year in the primaries, at a debate in new york by al gore, who was running for the democratic nomination against michael dukakis. he raised the furlough program first and then republicans

picked it up in the general election. >> the democrats, the decagon may use that revolving door imagery in the response, i didn't day? >> yes, that's one of those things that i've always found a little curious. nancy reagan did it in a spot that we did earlier. it was one of the principles that a lot of political communicators tried to tell their candidates, don't repeat the charge. that whole dukakis campaign is sort of a study, i want to be too strong in saying in confidence, but it was a really poorly run campaign so many ways. the dukakis campaign waited way too long to respond. you see those two spots juxtaposed, and it's like one spot showing, voters a few minutes later and seeing another on television. it was several weeks before dukakis figured out how to respond, and that was the sort of story of the whole dukakis campaign they looked at reportedly 1000 different scripts for spots before the fall campaign ran they delete

and allied over them and they just were not as memorable which is why in 1992 you saw bill clinton institute a war room to respond more quickly to these kind of charges. dukakis was caught flat-footed and he never really recovered from the furlough, the spot and the other spots that bush ran against him attacking him for his opposition to, for example, the death penalty. >> i recognize and remember that voice from the dukakis response ad. it was well known, washington both -- washington base but national voice over artist by the name of mary illumine. the people who did these ads, either the voice over artist or actors in the, added they ever find a disadvantage in terms of them being labeled as one political party or another? >> you, know i have not heard of anybody being labeled as one party or another you, know it may be the case. i have not focused on that too much. but i would like to point out, something that i not mentioned earlier, and talking about

voice overs. if you remember back to the beginning of the program when we showed that bob and i spot from 1950 to, both voices in that bob and i can spot were mel blanca who was the voice of bugs bunny and elm are funded. and the other spot, i like, i was a spot that was produced by disney, by roy disney walt disney's brother. so, there are these great examples of prominent people, well-known people, while whom voice actors doing or involved in these spots who maybe don't get the credit they deserve and they probably don't often want the credit. as i understand and are generally doing it for the paycheck. they are not going out in finding a republican voice actor or a democratic voice actor, political consultants are looking for a particular kind of always not a voice that the person who agrees with the politics. >> let's hear from art in tennessee on the independent line. go ahead. >> good morning.

>> morning. >> i had a question about [inaudible] the progression of -- >> art, i am sorry, your phone is breaking up. i apologize. we cannot really hear what you are saying. maybe try dialing back in. dingell would, ohio. rocky on the republican line. >> i just wanted to make a statement in regards to the use of the money sent to democrats to release and use for these commercials. it would be better used on this world that are without so that they could live a decent life like they are supposed to be. that is all i have got to say. god bless you. >> bob mann, you kind of address that but any for the response? >> well, you know, the thing is we spent a lot of time talking

about how much money is spent on these ads and it is a lot of money. i mean it's a billion dollars, 600 million dollars, is a lot of money for any family but it's a fraction of what coca-cola spends every year on its advertising. i mean this is -- when you look at the total advertising budgets from these major corporations, you look at the total amount of money that is spent on advertising products of all stripes across the board. the amount of political advertising is a drop in the bucket. what makes it seem like it's so obscene is that it's mostly compressed in the last two months to six weeks of a campaign so by the time the campaign -- by the time election day comes along, you feel like you have seen nothing but political ads. they are really concentrated in the last few weeks of the campaign and they just sort of magnifies, i think, the voters mind how much money is being spent. relatively speaking, it's really not that much. >> on sundays here in washington journal, we welcome

our viewers from the uk and our partnership with the bbc parliament channel in this final hour of the program. we say good morning to the uk. this is dennis. hi there. >> good morning. having successfully fought against republican voter suppression in florida, both in 1968 and 2000, i just want to -- it always seems like republicans repressing the vote. have you ever seen any evidence of the democrats trying to suppress the votes were? >> first of all dennis i would like to say, you should be a voice actor. [laughs] you have a great voice. you should consider narrating. that is a good question. i think that what you see right now, well you have seen over the last 20 years are republicans pushing for, you know, what -- they don't use the word voter suppression so much, they talk about ballot integrity.

it's republicans who are mostly talking about that, not democrats. i think it is because of the generally agreed, maybe it's not accurate, but the generally agreed supposition that, you know, the more people who vote, the better it is marginally for democrats. democrats tend to turn out more in big elections and presidential election years. in these elections that are going to be decided by small margins, you know, while these tactics come into place. where political advertising comes in, and i think talking about the question about bringing in political advertising, if i could. there is the sense that, i think, is what around political signs for a long time. it's an disfavor a little bit, the negative advertising that oppressive voter turnout. if we can make the campaign as negative as possible, as nasty as possible, people will be turned off. it used to be the sense that

republicans and some democrats would want you to be disgusted and walk away in that is why we had so much negative advertising. i don't think that's the case and i don't think that's the sensibility most candidates have now. they really want to tap the other side to gain advantage but are used to be seen, for a long time, as a voter suppression tool. >> question for you from carl in trevor city, michigan. mr. mann, can you comment on the ads brown awareness and brand reinforcement versus the advent of branding the opponent by " going negative " also, interesting the media is the " enemy of the states " yet election years are boom years in revenue for media companies. billions of dollars pumped into companies whose leadership are typically conservative, yet the frontline employees are accused of being bias. >> there is no talking -- it maybe sounds like i am contradicting myself a little bit. these tv stations and news organizations are happy to have that money and there is a lot

of it that comes in in a very shell route -- in a very small timeframe. i am not at all diminishing the impact of the money especially to the organization, local tv stations to love having that money although i think once -- if you are living in a swing state and you are seeing a bunch of political ads, you are probably not seeing as many ads for trial lawyers and cardio learns. you will start seeing those on november 4th, maybe get sick of those all over again. what was the first question? >> talking about the difference between branding versus going negative and attacking the brand, if you will. >> that is a really good question. i think we are going to see, in the next campaign, eventually we are going to -- see no in 2000 we will see this bio spot that al gore ran. i think we will see who won

that john kerry runs in 2004. >> right. >> i used to be really calm in that candidates would run knees-minute long bile spots. george h. w. bush ran one in 1988. it's sort of introduce myself to the voters, sort of brand myself as a kind of person that i am. you do not see those so much anymore. i think it's because by the time the fall election occurs, everybody knows who these candidates. are you do not really have to -- they have been branding themselves all year. you do not see the bio spots as much as he used to. they used to be on the local level, state and local level, it's still very, very common to see those bio spots as an effort to brand. here's the other part of it, the opposition, you know, bill clinton did this in 1996 famously to bob dole. started early, early in the year. earlier than most presidential candidates do advertising attack spots against bob dole

to try to brand him, to try to label him before he can do it for himself. >> we will get to those ads from 2000 and 2004. this is about 20 minutes left in our history of presidential campaign advertising with our guest from louisiana state university, robert mann and your calls and comments but let's move on to 1992. the 1992 race and the ads in that campaign. >> i was born in a little town called hope, arkansas, three months after my father died. i remember that old two story house where i lived with my grandparents. they had very limited incomes. it was in 1963 that i went to washington when at president kennedy with the boys nation program. i remember thinking, what did incredible country this was at somebody like me, you know, had no money or anything would be given the opportunity to meet the president. that is when i decided i could really do public service because i care so much about

people. >> i work my way through law school with part-time jobs, anything i could find. after a graduated, i really did not care about making a lot of money. i just wanted to home and see if i could make a difference. we worked hard in education and health care to create jobs and we have made real progress. now it's exhilarating to me that this president, i could help change all our peoples lives for the breeze -- better and bring hope to the american dream were. >> i do not believe him. i do not believe him one bit. >> i do not believe him. >> trust. >> i do not know much about bill clinton. >> he tells us what we want to hear. >> he wants to spend money and the only way you can do that is to taxpayers. >> less food on the table. let's close on the kids back. >> i do not know how we can take more taxes. >> he raised taxes. >> just last of everything. >> pretty simply, who is a best

qualified person on the stage to create jobs? make the decision and vote on november the 3rd. i suggest you might consider somebody who has created jobs. second, who's the best person to manage money? i suggest you pick the person who has successfully manage money. who was the best person to get results? look and make a decision. and finally, who would you give your pension fund and your savings account to to manage? and last one, who would you ask to be the trustee of your estate and take care of your children if something happened to you? finally, students up there, god bless you. i am doing this for you. i want you to have the american dream. [applause] to the american people, i am doing this because i love you. that is it. >> bob mann of lsu.

it's a lease produce, least slick ad we will see in the bunch we are showing today. >> yeah, maybe in some ways, my favorite just because it is so and produced. it's just sort of pure, ross perot into your living room and i like it. i mean i really like it. i don't think it was an ineffective at as all. it was unpolished but it's sort of was -- it captured the essence of ras perot. his humanity, his plain spoken us, his on authenticity. >> that really two is a bio ad as you were talking about. >> yeah, i overlooked that one when we were talking about that one earlier. that, to me, is a masterpiece. so that was a distillation, a 62nd distillation of a 15 minute film that was produced by linda thompson who was a very successful hollywood television producer who had

several designing women and these two very popular shows at the time. she and her husband, harry, were very good friends with the clintons who were both from the same part of the world. they produce this bio spot and he was shown at the democratic convention in new york in 1992. i was actually there in the convention hall and saw it and it was electrifying and it was very effective because here is clinton, this graduate of georgetown and yale who, for a lot of people, did not know much about him at the time. thought he was a child of privilege and grown up in wealth and this film was really designed as showing he came from the heartland. he came from modest means. he was one of us. i mean the idea that he was born in a town called hope is just perfect. you could not write a better script for the name of a hometown for a political candidate. and then the most electrifying

part of that spot was here is clinton talking about him self as the bridge between him and kamala, between john f. kennedy and this new democratic party and you literally have bill clinton shaking hands at the rose garden with john f. candidly. it was an electrifying moment when people saw that for the first time and he was not just a report -- rhetorical connection that he had to john f. kennedy, it was a physical connection. i think it was really one of the best bio spots that i have ever seen. the 15 minute spot is really a masterpiece. i have shown it to my students over the years many times because it's just a beautiful piece of political advertising. >> let's get back to calls. we want to get to a couple of sets of ads before we wrap up. this is tom from maryland. democrats line. >> hello, professor. thank you very much for coming on. i was just very interested in the bush ad that you showed what.

it reminds me of how he ran largely extend to wagon-ism. and how reagan ran in a law and order president. i think that, you know, reagan created these anecdotal -- it's and i were wrong image from reagan. my question is, has his message become less effective with the trump campaign? how do you think the form of racism connects with the average voter in these days as opposed to in the eighties and maybe in nixon? okay, tom, thank you. >> well, i think bush was mostly effective in doing this because dukakis was so inept and responding to it. i think they're probably were better ways to respond to it, certainly we are ways than dukakis did, you caucus wasn't enough candidates so many ways the most effective use of that law and order is when it is a

challenger, critiquing the governance of the incumbent, so that richard nixon very effectively challenging, portraying the world under a lyndon johnson democratic presidency, that was effective i think it's probably less effective for the incumbent to be saying that if you elect, me if you elect my opponent, you will have the conditions that you have now have. it's a very hard argument to make, and i think that's probably why it's not really been a very effective message for president trump. >> the republican line, bradley in west virginia. >> hi good morning, and thank you for c-span. i was kind of disappointed that you kept in 1976 -- skip the 1976 election with ford and carter. gerald ford's presidency was, a

head of the fact they had to face election in two years so their foreign policy was restricted to, it had to take a backseat to domestic policy in the election and i was just wondering, what did you have to say about the 1976 campaign? >> well you know, that campaign, those ads were interesting. that was a tough, that was a rough campaign. it is interesting knowing how those two candidates became very good friends later on in life, and jimmy carter delivers a eulogy at gerald ford's funeral, you would never have imagined that could be possible, when you see the rough and tumble spots that they were using so jimmy carter is basically running against the corruption of the nixon administration, promising, sort of tying richard nixon to gerald ford, promising that new

start and then i think if we had more time obviously you would want to show the bio spot that jimmy carter ran, anchoring himself in the heartland values of georgia, as a peanut farmer, showing him on his peanut farm, showing his hometown of planes. they were very effective attacks spots but i think there were also maybe more so very effective at framing carter as a complete and total break from this corrupt republican administration that so many people still remembered, and as you pointed out, we were barely two years since richard nixon had resigned in this race. >> and i remind all our callers and c-span radio listeners that you can read robert mann's books about the entire topic, daisy petals and mushroom clouds we can't get everything but let's at least get to the 2000s here, and here are some of the ads in the 2000 campaign of george bush and al gore.

here is a look. >> 1969. america in turmoil. al gore graduates college his, father a u.s. senator, opposes the vietnam war. i'll gore has his doubts but enlisting the army. when you come home from vietnam, the last thing he thinks he'll ever do is enter politics. he starts a family, becomes investigative reporter. then, i'll gore decided that the change what was wrong in america, he had to fight for what was right. he ran for congress, held some of the first hearings on cleaning up toxic waste, made the environment has caused, broke with his own party to support the gulf war, fought to reform welfare with work requirements. he fights now to ensure the prosperity of richness enrich is all our families, not just -- he took on big drug companies to guarantee prescription drugs for senior. tax cuts for working families in the middle class. al gore, married 30 years, father of four, fighter for us.

>> under clinton gore, prescription drug prices have skyrocketed, and nothing's been done george bush has a plan, and a prescription -- out of prescription drug benefit to medicare >>. every senior will have access to prescription drug benefits. >> and i'll? gore gore opposed bipartisan reform. he's pushing a big government plan that lets washington bureaucrats interfere with what your doctors prescribe. the gore prescription plan, bureaucrats decide. the bush prescription plan seniors shoes. >> and professor, man it was pointed out that that george w. bush campaign, prescription drugs, has that subliminal message in that, and i will tell you, viewing it, you see the flash, but it's called the rats ad. tell us why drug this is an ad >> about well, so the word bureaucrats, this is an ad about health care, prescription drug plans, and it is not an ad about --

it's an ad attacking, it is positive and negative, but when the bureaucrats comes up on the screen for one third of one second, it is enlarged and says, you just see the last four letter, our atsc, rats, and some of you are somewhere, not anybody connected with the gore campaign saw it and alerted either somebody in the press for the gore campaign that this thing had shown rats for a third of a second and ensued several days long brouhaha over whether the bush campaign had implanted a subliminal message into the spot. there are people you will find who still will have a very spirited argument over, number one, whether those kind of subliminal messages work, but whether it was intentional or not. it is anybody's guess, i suppose, at this point, whether it was intentional.

for a third of a second, it is hard to imagine anyone would have noticed. did the idea is that no one would've noticed it consciously, but unconsciously you would say the democrats were rats. it seems too cute by half, but maybe not. >> to kevin in omaha, nebraska. democrats line, go ahead. >> hi, first of all, thank you professor for your excellent presentation this morning. very informative. >> thank you. >> i was wondering if, i know traditionally the campaign starts after labor day. there is a continuing -- is that particular do legislative, regulated? is there a chance hope in might move earlier in the year to be more effective? do >> great question. yeah, i think it's definitely has changed the way the

candidates are campaigning today. it's definitely -- who knows what the world will look like for years from now but if the trend is towards much more earlier voting that i think sadly if you are not really a fan of political campaigns, you are going to see a longer political season. traditionally, i mean the campaigns are really -- if you are living in one of the swing states, you have put up with the year of this. nationally, if you are in the national spots, it might be on cnn, msnbc or fox or whatever, you are probably not seeing those in any great number until the last six weeks, two months of the campaign. but regardless i think if you are living in a place like florida, ohio, michigan, or wisconsin, nevada, arizona, you are going to be spots like this all year long. >> let's see if we can get to the 2004 ad, robert mann. the takeout look before we wrap up the program. here's a look. >> i was born unfit simmons

army hospital in colorado. my dad was serving in the army air corps. both my parents taught me have a public service. i enlisted because i believe in servicing the country. i thought it was important if you had a lot of privileges as i have had to go to a great university like yale to give something back to your country. >> the decisions he may say their lives. >> when he pulled me out of the river he rest his life to save mine. for >> more than 30 years, john kerry has served america. >> if you look at my father's time in service to this country, veteran, prosecutor or senator, he has shown an ability to fight for things that matter. >> john is the face of someone who was hopeful, who was generous when spirit and apart. >> we are a country of optimism. we are the candle people and we just need to believe in ourselves again. >> a lifetime of service and strength. john kerry for president. >> i am john kerry and i approve this message. the >> they had personally

raped, cut off ears, cut off heads. >> the accusations that john kerry made against the veterans who served in vietnam was just devastating. >> randomly shot at civilians. >> and it hurt me more than any physical wounds i had. >> cut off limbs, blown up bodies. >> that was part of the torture, to sign a statement that you committed war crimes. >> raise villages in a fashion reminiscent of genghis khan. >> john kerry -- would i and many of my comrades in north vietnam, in the prison camps, took torture to avoid saying. it demoralized us. >> crimes committed on a day-to-day basis. >> he betrayed us in the past. how can we be loyal to him now? >> ravish the countryside of vietnam. >> he dishonest his country and more importantly people he served with. he just sold them out. >> but it's responsible for the content of this advertisement but. >> professor mann, the 2004

campaign, famously that last ad called the " swift vote " ad. what was the origin of that? >> that was one of four -- at least four were spots run by this organization called " swift boat veterans for truth ". it was a group of vets who many of whom had harbored sort of elwell vendetta against john kerry since 1971 when he testified against a vietnam war before the senate. carrie begins his campaign and it's this bio spot. his whole campaign was built around his ballor and vietnam, winning a brown star, silver star, purple heart as a swift vote captain. this third party group, not associated with the bush campaign begins running these ads in several states attacking and undermining the validity of carries claims about how he won

these medals and that quickly became a major issue in the campaign. it's a great example of how third-party organization using -- can run some ads, very small expenditure and how balloons into a major campaign issue generating a lot of money and it's really the centerpiece for the campaign. it was down about five spots when it began airing in 2000. those spots were really destroying john kerry's campaign. >> bob mann, i wish we had more time this morning. professor robert mann, the professor at louisiana university. thank you so much for spending time with us this morning. >> thank you. it was a lot of fun. >> for more on political campaigns, you can find plenty of archival ads presidential debates and campaign speeches on our website c-span.org law. weeknights this month, we are featuring american history tv programs as a preview of what's

available every weekend on c-span 3. tonight, university of mary washington professor, william crowley, discusses the life and legacy of president thomas jefferson. paying particular attention to his words and actions on his words of slavery race. this top is from the university's great lives lecture series. that's at 8 pm eastern. and enjoy american history tv this weekend every weekend on c-span 3. >> john f. kennedy was the first remains the only catholic to be elected president of the united states. during the 1960 campaign, many protestant groups publicly opposed to senator kennedy, during the influence of the pope in the catholic church on his presidency. up