Marilyn Ferguson, an author for the human potential movement once said, Ultimately we know deeply

that the other side of every fear is freedom. Thats what 3AM by the Hillary Clinton 2008 Presidential
Campaign and Daisy Girl by the Lyndon B. Johnson 1964 Presidential Campaign, proved to the American
people. These two campaigns, and most every other presidential campaign, try to use fear to persuade voters.
Campaigns try to convince the voters that on their candidate's side is freedom and on their opponent's side is
fear. Both ads, 3AM and Daisy Girl were extremely effective in garnering votes for their respective
candidates, through exploiting past events, making use of existing ideology, the use of pathos, and the use of
exigence, resulting in a clear call for the candidate to be elected.
Historical context is vital to understanding the success of both of these campaign ads. Both ads rely on
and extort past events to prove the need for a strong president, someone like their candidate. Hillary Clintons 3
AM ad is set in the present day when it was released. In 2008, the fight against terrorism was still in relatively
full swing. Without mentioning it, the ad brings to mind the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, when the
speaker starts the claim that something is happening in the world. This is highly effective because 9/11 is a
strong memory in most listeners minds, and therefore starts the appeal to pathos in the ad. This idea carries the
listener through the ad until their thoughts of danger are confirmed when the speaker describes that the
something he describes is dangerous. The historical context outlines the need for a strong president to protect
the speaker and American people from the dangerous things the world has to offer. The ad will later establish
that the need for a strong president can only be filled by their candidate. Similar to Clinton's ad, LBJs
Campaign Daisy Girl uses a similar historical approach to set up a need for a strong president. Set in 1964,
the viewer is in the midst of The Cold War with the Soviet Union. Tensions are very high between the United
States and the Soviet Union, and with both having nuclear capabilities and arsenals, everybody is sure that the
world is on the brink of a nuclear disaster. Much of the world had seen the destruction of these bombs, as not
even twenty years earlier, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan. The country has a real and
concrete fear of what could happen, and the mushroom cloud from the nuclear explosion in the ad reminds the
viewer of that fear. The ad uses historical context to show the viewer what could happen if the voters dont elect
the right person, Johnson, of course. Both ads rely on historical context to set up the rest of the ad and to

provide a basis of fear for the ad to exploit. The ads also rely on ideology to convince voters to elect their
candidate.
Both ads appeal to ideology to garner votes for their candidate, though the ideologies, and how the ads
use them are different. Hillary Clintons ad uses her ideology to gain voters while LBJs ad uses his opponents
in own his favor. Hillary Clintons ad asserts the ideology that we need a strong leader to maintain the United
States as a leader of the free world. The ad suggests someone who knows the leaders of the world should
answer the phone. This is an attempt to point out that someone like her opponent, Barack Obama, who was also
running for the 2008 Democratic primary nomination, is inexperienced and therefore not fit for the presidency.
This also points out that Hillary Clinton, someone who does know the leaders of the world and has worked with
the military previously, is fit for the presidency. On the other hand, LBJs campaign relies on partisan ideologies
to make its point. LBJ was running as a Democrat in the general election against Republican Barry Goldwater.
Barry was a far right Republican on the political spectrum. He was so conservative that he believes in the use of
tactical nuclear weapons. Without even mentioning Goldwaters name, the ad alludes to the fact that the nuclear
disaster the ad portrays is more likely to happen under a Goldwater presidency. Goldwaters own ideology was
that America needed nuclear weapons to combat the Soviets. LBJs ad uses Goldwater's ideology against him
and ends up winning the presidential race by a landslide. This is where some logos comes into play. If
Goldwater wants nuclear weapons then he is more likely to use them. The American people know that the use of
nuclear weapons would result in MAD, or mutually assured destruction. Using logical reasoning, the people can
conclude that a vote for Goldwater is a vote for MAD, which scares them into voting for LBJ. The use of
ideology differs mainly on the campaign both candidates are running. Hillary Clinton is in the primary election,
and therefore there is no partisan political ideology that she can use against her fellow democrat. She tries to
point out her opponent's inexperience to make herself seem more experienced. Unlike Clinton, LBJ is in the
general election, running against a Republican who he can use party ideology to get people to support himself.
People are afraid of nuclear arms and the fact that Goldwater is in support of using them scared the American
people so they all but ran to LBJ, winning him most of the electorate. In addition to ideology, pathos is used
throughout both attack ads.

Emotion is a powerful tool in political campaigns that is used in ads to appeal to voters as seen in Hillary
Clintons 3 AM and LBJs Daisy Girl. In both ads, the campaigns use fear to persuade parents into voting
for their candidate, otherwise something might happen to the voters children. In Hillary Clinton's ad, she
appeals to the fear of what would happen if the wrong person answers the ringing phone. She wants the viewer
to believe that if the most qualified person, being herself, doesnt answer the phone, something catastrophic
might happen. The speaker creates ethos for Clinton by establishing that she has worked with the military
before and other world leaders, inferring shell know what to do. She applies pathos to the situation by
appealing to parents fear for their childrens safety. The ad states that Something is happening in America
while the camera pans over the children sleeping in their beds. This is how the ad links the looming catastrophe
to the childrens safety. Parents feel the need to protect their children, so they must find a way to prevent this
catastrophic thing from happening. The ad then tells the viewer that this can be averted if the right person
answers the phone, meaning Hillary Clinton. The only way in which Clinton would have the opportunity to
answer the phone is if the viewer votes to elect Clinton to the Presidency. Thus creating the logic, by using
logos, that in order to keep their children safe, they must elect Hillary Clinton for President. LBJ also relies on
the emotion of fear. In an almost identical sense, he uses a young girl as a character in his ad who could
represent a voters daughter. As stated previously, voters will elect someone who can protect their children, and
therefore will go with the safer choice of LBJ. Through the use of political ideology, they know that under a
Goldwater administration that nuclear war is possible while under a Johnson administration it is less likely. In
order to prevent a nuclear war from harming their children, parents must vote for LBJ.
Both ads also use exigence to heighten their use of fear. The voters must elect their candidates now.
Voters must vote or catastrophe will strike. The ads focus on the the consequences of not voting for their
candidate in order to create a sense of urgency to vote in their favor. The ads create an excellence feeling of duty
in the voters, that if the voters do not vote in this election, the other candidate might win. Whether it be in
Hillary Clintons ad where Barack Obama doesnt know what to do when he answers the phone or in LBJs ad
where Barry Goldwater will launch us into a nuclear war the ads makes sure to illustrate the fact that if the other

candidate wins, disaster will ensue. This leaves the voter with only one viable option, being the campaigns
airing these ads.
In conclusion, at the end of each ad the viewer has collected all the information from it. They start to
summarize and form logical conclusions. In Hillary Clinton's case, viewers come to the decision that in order to
prevent another terrorist attack or to protect their children they must elect the most qualified candidate, who is
in this case, Hillary Clinton. For LBJ, viewers realize in order to prevent a nuclear war that is possible under a
Goldwater presidency they must vote for LBJ. While the ad is effective, it was not effective enough to win
Hillary Clinton the democratic nomination. On the other hand, LBJs ad was part of a collective effort that is
enough to create a landslide win over Barry Goldwater. Despite Hillarys loss, these campaign ads were
effective in using past events, existing ideologies, emotion and a need for the candidate to be elected to procure
votes for the candidate who is airing the ad.

Reference
"Top 10 Campaign Ads." Time. Time Inc., 22 Sept. 2008. Web. 9 Oct. 2015.