I like Ike

In his 1952 presidential campaign ad, Dwight D. Eisenhower attempts to convey to the public an image of himself as a nominee beloved by all who is being taken to the presidency by the adoring public. Using repeating animation cycles and catchy music, Eisenhower in this ad attempts to not only appeal to voters using this up beat happy image, but also places some of his political opponents in direct contrast to that happy beloved characterization of himself. The animated ad opens with the singers repeating the phrase “Ike for president”, as if to clearly state the purpose of this ad. Then the ad transitions into the happy catchy song set to images of crowds of people marching to the right of the screen. We see Uncle Sam, a traditional cartoon figure ordinarily used as a manifestation of American patriotic emotions, marching happily across the screen with an Ike pin on his lapel to show his support. We see an elephant draped with a banner on which is a cute caricature of the nominee, banging with his tail on a marching drum which drags behind him, invigorating and providing rhythm for the crowds of marching Ike supporters as the singers call for us to hang out the banners and beat the drums. Crowds which include cowboys, chefs, and railroad workers. This eclectic gathering of people meant to represent Americans from all walks of life uniting under the literal Ike banners that they carry.

This idea of universal support for Ike is further developed throughout the video. We see a presumed farmer driving a tractor with an Ike flag on the back. A married couple pushing a baby stroller, the baby inside of which is carrying an Ike balloon. Even the dog that trails behind them has an Ike flag attached to his tail. All while the music repeats the line “you like Ike, I like Ike, everybody likes Ike.” All while marching towards the right side of the screen, the side traditionally associated with the Republican Party and right wing politics. We are also briefly shown three donkeys, the donkey being the symbol of the Democratic Party, as the singers sing “We don’t want John or Dean or Harry.” This is clearly a reference to his political rivals at the time John Sparkman, Dean Acheson, and Harry Truman. As the crowds keep marching forward the background switches from a bright day landscape to a night time one, showing the crowds commitment to the case that would carry them forward day and night. As the night panel streams in we are also treated to the sight of a shadowy figure in the background once again riding a donkey going left in opposite direction to the crowd. While the singers make the message clear by singing “we’ve got to get where we are going, travel day and night for president. But Adlai goes the other way. We’ll all go with Ike.” The Adlai referenced in the lyrics, also most likely the person meant to be depicted by the background shadowy figure, is Adlai Stevenson, Eisenhower’s democratic opponent. And as the parade of citizens finally reaches their destination, Washington, a bright sun rises over the dome of the white house with the word Ike in the center of it, illuminating the land in bright sunshine.

Everything from the marching crowds, the Ike banners and flags all culminating in Ike himself, in the form of a shining sun, rising over the white house, down to the repeated lyric “I like Ike”, which would later become his campaign slogan, paints him as a candidate of the people. The song’s repeated use of “we” and “let’s” at no point focuses on the role that Ike has to play. Even when disparaging his political opponents, the lyrics are “Let’s do that big job right”, not he. There is a very clear lack of emphasis on himself. This is most likely related to the history behind his candidacy. In this video the idea conveyed to us is that the one most fit for the presidency is clearly the one most beloved and supported by the people.

 

I like Ike

Campaign Ad Analysis – Amson

amsons-analysis-post

Option #2:

After much thought, I decided to do my primary ad on “Hillary Clinton: Daisy” which revisits the original “Daisy” ad from the 1964 campaign.  In terms of context, there are many similarities in both ads, some of which are compelling and important to note such as the same implied message that disaster was imminent if we chose the “wrong” candidate and how both ads attempted to depict the other as dangerous and in a negative light.  Although the modern ad speaks to the original one by showing Trump as another “Goldwater”, it would be facile to ignore the key differences and elements that makes “Hillary Clinton: Daisy” unique.

I think in the contemporary ad, more rhetoric is used, much like the structure of a documentary, to describe the issues and stakes of voting for Trump while the historic one does it almost entirely through the imagery of the little girl counting down the daisy petals and in the later explosion scene if not for the short commentary towards the end.  More significantly, the differences in form highlight the variations in the tone by focusing on different aspects of the visual-audio effect towards the intended target audience, which demographically, is obviously different from that of 1964.

To articulate these elements more precisely, it is imperative to examine the ad by partitioning it into three equal segments of 10 seconds.  The first 10 seconds are grayscale, beginning with Hillary Clinton and the voice over from the original Daisy lady who is now probably in her 50s. This was perhaps trying to foreshadow a connection between the current election and that of 1964 and augment the stakes of this election by furthering the line of argument.  The next 10 seconds pan out from grayscale and directs viewers’ attention to the news correspondents statement “why can’t we use nuclear weapons” and the image of Trump talking before finishing the scene with Trump saying “bomb the sh*t out of them!”.  Therefore, I think it is important to think about the contrasts between these segments and analyze how the differences in form alters our perception of both ads, despite the similarities in their intended messages.

 

References:

Primary ad:

“Hillary Clinton: Daisy.” New Republic. Hillary for America, 31 Oct. 2016. Web. 31 Oct. 2016.

https://newrepublic.com/political-ad-database/hillary-clinton-daisy/MTAvMzEvMTY6RGFpc3k

 

Secondary ad:

“Peace Little Girl (Daisy),” Democratic National Committee, 1964 Maker: DDB: Aaron Erlich, Stan Lee, Sid Myers, and Tony Schwartz Original air date: 09/07/64 Video courtesy of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library. From Museum of the Moving Image, The Living Room Candidate: Presidential Campaign Commercials 1952-2012. www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1964/peace-little-girl-daisy  Accessed October 31, 2016.

Campaign Ad Analysis — Samie Ababafha

The 2016 presidential election had one very reoccurring theme that both candidates used to their full advantage, fear. Fear is one of the most influential emotions that can really dominate the way someone thinks. In Hillary Clinton’s ad titled “Unfit” Hillary Clinton has multiple republican and conservative experts state that they are very concerned of a Donald Trump presidency. Throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton and her staff kept emphasizing the fact that Donald Trump does not have the right temperament to be in the White House. The ad “Unfit” does a great job of feeding into people’s fears, and emphasizing the fact that Donald Trump is not the right man for the job by showing experts of his own party speaking out against him.

The first seconds of the ad starts off by showing a picture of Hillary Clinton and an aid looking at a piece of paper in a very concerned manner. They seem very serious which in turn foreshadows a very serious ad. Also, the picture of Hillary Clinton and her aid is in black and white. This makes the whole scene much more dramatic. Hillary Clinton is standing right in the middle of the picture, so right away, our eyes go straight to her. This emphasizes the fact that this ad is about Hillary Clinton. The next scene is transitioned with the accompaniment of a slow piano playing. It seems like a scene out of a horror movie. Next, the ad shows the White House at night time. The White House looks very creepy, almost like an old haunted mansion. Within the first four seconds of the ad, we can see that Hillary Clinton has made it clear that the priority of this ad is to scare people by having them imagine what a trump presidency would look like.

The first person to speak in the ad is Michael Hayden, former CIA director under George W. Bush. Hayden specifically says that due to some of the things that Donald trump has said during his campaign, he would be very “frightened” of a Donald Trump presidency. The next scene shows Donald Trump for the first time, but it only shows his back as he is walking away. This can symbolize many things. For starters, it symbolizes that Donald Trump would turn his back on the American people if he becomes president because he is portrayed to be a very selfish and arrogant person. Also, Trump is seen walking away in slow motion which dramatizes the clip even more. The following expert Hillary Clinton uses in the ad against Donald Trump is Gillian Turner, Former National Security Council under President George W. Bush and President Obama. Gillian Turner brings up the topic of nuclear weapons which is one of the most frightening things to think about. She states that Donald trump has suggested the use of nuclear weapon against our Western European allies. The big goal of this ad is to strike fear into people’s hearts, and the best way to do that is with speaking about the possibility of a nuclear war.

The ad goes on to bring out a few other prominent republican experts to speak out against Donald Trump. Also, the ad shows pictures and small clips of Donald Trump. But these are not ordinary pictures and clips. The screen turns black and a picture of Donald Trump comes up looking rather nervous. This backs up their claim that Donald Trump is not the right person for the job. It suggests that he might crumble under pressure and do something unthought-of like starting a nuclear war. Hillary Clinton and her staff do a great job of using Donald Trump’s own party members and experts against him. By using experts, The Clinton campaign is able to legitimize their claim that Donald Trump is “unfit” for the highest office in the land. The objective of the ad definitely worked its magic on me, after watching the ad I was definitely afraid of the future President Trump.

 

Link to campaign-ad-analysis-postHillary Clinton “Unfit” ad

https://newrepublic.com/political-ad-database/hillary-clinton-unfit/OC81LzE2OlVuZml0

Campaign Ad Analysis

The 1952 presidential election lead to a new type of campaign. The presidential candidates were now utilizing TV as a platform for delivering their rhetoric. The 1952 election was the advent of political cartoon ads being used on TV as well. The ad I am choosing to analyze is the “Platform Double-Talk” from the 1952 presidential campaign. Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson was employing this ad to attack the credibility of the Republican party and his opponent, Dwight Eisenhower. In the ad, Stevenson is labeling the GOP and Eisenhower as “flip floppers” on the issues, and that they can never provide a clear answer to voters. Although this ad is relatively short, the ad makes the GOP look like a circus act that is incapable of leading and cannot being taken serious. The ad makes it seem that the GOP is employing someone to be a “ringmaster” for their double-talking act, as if they are trying to present this idea and to sell this idea off as a good thing for voters.  There are many formal elements like the music, the words, the visuals and the characters themselves that communicate Stevenson’s idea of the GOP and his opponent being a circus act and being incapable of having any involvement as president.

The ad begins with the title stating clearly and centered “Platform Double-Talk” this is accompanied by circus music being played in the background, which can be heard throughout the whole ad. The Stevenson campaign picked this because the target audience were accustomed to the sounds and the acts of a circus. This is used to spark the idea that the GOP is a circus act, unlike the Democratic party, and is not a serious option for the presidency. The scene that immediately follows the title is the actual cartoon. In the foreground, there are two characters, the master of ceremonies and Mr. “Mac-G-O-P,” on stage under a sign that states “Republican Side Show,” and in the background you can see what looks like the rest of a circus. This is most of the visuals that are presented in this ad, aside from movements and focusing.  These visuals attack the GOP as being unfit and a side show rather than a prominent force in politics. This is the most direct form of attack the Stevenson campaign used; the rest came from the words and the characters in the ad. This ad attacks the Republican party and the idea of democracy because Stevenson is trying to prove to the audience that the presidency should not being taken over by a party that is a “joke.” Also the GOP will go against the public with their “double-talking” rhetoric and go against what the people have voted for. The initial visuals and sounds are not the only thing that add to this idea, but the characters and words continue this idea.

The main characters in this cartoon are the master of ceremonies and Mr. “Mac-G-O-P.” The master of ceremonies looks like a circus ringmaster, which makes Mr. “Mac-G-O-P” the attraction that people are coming to see. The character is depicted by dressing formal, having a big frame and his distinctive two heads. This character represents the two sides of the Republican party. One that is pro a specific issue and one that is against the same issue. In the ad, the public gets frustrated that this two-headed character is confusing the issue and the public. Every issue that this GOP candidate takes up always leads to a pro and con. This leads to the end where the narrator says “Don’t you be confused. Vote for Stevenson for president.” By depicting the GOP as a circus act confused on the issue, Stevenson’s campaign was trying to relay to the audience to stand with the Democratic party because they are not confused on any issue. In a historical sense, Stevenson was trying to continue the Democrats power in office because his two predecessors were FDR and Truman, which led the country out of the Great Depression and World War II.

Word document: analysis-post

Link to ad: http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1952

Campaign Ad Analysis~ Kayla Marcelin

Primary Ad: https://newrepublic.com/political-ad-database/hillary-clinton-sacrifice/OS82LzE2OlNhY3JpZmljZQ

Secondary Ad: http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/issue/war

War and military advertisements are known to invoke the interests of viewers. In both of the campaigns chosen for analysis, which include Hilary Clinton’s “Sacrifice” and George W. Bush’s “Weapons”, there is military underlying and disheartening of their candidate’s policies. Clinton’s ad not only focuses on the rhetoric of her opponent Trump, but it does so by simultaneously showing images of war veterans, which is similar to Bush’s military ad. Through the analysis of “Sacrifice”, I was able to see the similarities between the ads made in 2004 and 2016, but also their differences which include the content of images portrayed and the way they regard their opponent.

Both campaign advertisements focus on military aspects, where they focus more on what how their opponent’s beliefs are detrimental, versus mentioning how their actions will be advantageous. Both simultaneously portray the object they are focusing on while they mention it. For example, Bush’s ad shows the helicopters and fighter jets as he talks about Kerry’s opposition of it. In addition, Clinton’s ad portrays a woman’s wearing her son’s dog tag at the same moment a parent who lost her son is mentioned.

In George Bush’s ad, the voice-over is speaking of Bush’s opponent, but the viewers never hear Kerry’s voice. In addition, Kerry is never portrayed in the ad, only soldiers are shown.  In “Sacrifice” most of the commentary in the commercial is from her opponent Donald Trump himself, with scenes that actually show him speaking. This shows that there can be no doubt of whether it is propaganda or if it was actually said by the candidate. In “Weapons” viewers can question if Kerry actually did the things mentioned, while Clinton’s ad uses clips of Donald Trump speaking during interviews. In Bush’s “Weapons”, there are only two scenes portrayed throughout the entire ad, with the only other changes being the text. “Sacrifices” portrays different scenes for the different scenarios of Donald Trump’s rhetoric. The fact that multiple war heroes are shown from different families not only makes it relatable, but being able to see their reactions to his rhetoric makes it more relatable to viewers watching at home. Through the strategies used by Clinton, a viewer is able to see areas where Bush’s ad is lacking. Even though both ads are in regards to the same issue, Clinton’s ad is much more relatable to most viewers while Bush’s appears to target people have great interest in militaristic affairs.

Campaign Ad Analysis

Bernie Sanders addresses the hesitation of those who believe the corrupt political system cannot be fixed. Instead of using visuals of the Wall Street corporation buildings, the ad focuses on a large farmland where it is rushing towards the horizon as the bright sun begins to rise. The visual also corresponds with what Bernie Sanders is saying: “…we need to lift our vision above the obstacles in place and look to the American horizon.” This helps bring the focus to rural communities and those that do not live in an area surrounded by skyscrapers. By focusing on them, it shows that Sanders value them for who they are and what they have contributed to the country.  At the same time, the perspective at this moment is above the field, showing that we can rise above the problem of corruption, and the bright sun helps give hope and inspiration. He follows up with the emphasis on college education opportunities. He includes a variety of races to speak to the minorities and those who do not have as many opportunities as they could have. For the other topics that he focuses on including: health care, job opportunities, glass ceiling, the individuals portrayed in the ad all appear to be satisfied, focused, and relaxed. By displaying these emotions, there is less worrying about the bad things that can happen. Another important part of the ad is discussing life after retirement. He makes a portrayal, engaging in a game of baseball with a young child. By putting himself, a politician, enjoying time with young kids, indicates that he does not side with the corrupt system and rigged economy. He wants to enjoy a simple life like most American citizens. The American flag also makes an appearance when discussing the defending of our people and our values. It gives a sense of nationalism and pride for who we are and what we should stand for as a nation. Although Sanders does not explicitly mention them in his speech, a woman wearing a hijab and veterans sporting U.S.M.C. hats appear. By not speaking about them yet having them appear, it indicates that Bernie Sanders is aware of their situation and also regards them as a high priority. The music also plays an important role in the ad. For example, in the beginning of the video, the music is very fast paced all the way till the sun rises from the horizon. It may reinforce the idea that what he plans to fix can become a reality in the near future. Afterwards, it is sounds much more heartfelt and generates a sense of longing. This works well with what he is saying because many things, such as equal wages and health care are things that our people desire. The rhythm of the music also makes it sound as if it is a very long journey that the person can accomplish. For instance, the slow pace and low sounding part of the music rising  to a quick, high sounding part resonates with the idea of slowly progressing but successfully achieving a goal.

The primary ad compares to the second ad in that they both refer to the rural communities and not just the business people. However, the second ad is narrated by someone that lives on a farm and helps to provide a voice for his people, the working class. The music is also somewhat similar; it is more peaceful but there is also a sense of strength and perseverance. Like the first ad, the music helps to reinforce what the narrator is saying in both ads. The third ad becomes more broad and makes mention of many of the topics that Bernie Sanders expresses concern for in the primary ad. The music is more fast paced here and gives a sense of urgency and the need for action. These ads help show that Bernie Sanders is of the common people and for the people, rather than for the corrupt businessmen and politicians.

Primary Ad: http://politicaladarchive.org/ad/PolAd_BernieSanders_4lv4e/

Secondary Ad: http://politicaladarchive.org/ad/PolAd_BernieSanders_tra1z/

Tertiary Ad: http://politicaladarchive.org/ad/PolAd_BernieSanders_q8l9l/

ad-analysis

Campaign ad Analysis

Judith Konamah

Option #2

Primary ad: https://newrepublic.com/political-ad-database/hillary -clinton-a-place-for-everyone/MTAvMTkvMTY6QSBQbGFjZSBmb3IgRXZlcnlvbmU

Second ad:  http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1996

I chose to compare two campaign ads from different election years to see their similarities and differences. Hillary Clinton’s campaign ad “A Place for Everyone” and Bill Clinton’s campaign ad, “Next Century” are similar and at the same different in regards to how they present the goals they are trying to achieve, and the audience that they target.

My primary ad, “A place for Everyone” by Hillary Clinton uses different techniques to try and get out its message. Some of these techniques however causes a lot of contradictions in the messages that she sends out. For example, the audience that she targets. She states that her message is to all americans but, based on images shown throughout the ad, it is obvious that it is really meant to attract families and the working class people. She use subtle background music that also sound like her way of emphasizing the importance of her message. She use this to grab the attention of her listeners but not enough for them to not hear her message.  

Hillary uses children, individuals and families, specifically single parents throughout the video.  I can see that she uses images of “ordinary” American people to represent everything in the video except for when she talks about the future. She shows herself to be the future of this nation by using videos of herself and not of the American people. Hillary talks about America being already great but what she insinuates in the video is that she can make it better. Even though she use words like “we” and “us”, she talks only about the dream she has for her future America not the one that the people want.

Hillary’s message to the people of lower class is that she can help them make a better living. She states that she will “get the economy to work for everyone not just the ones at the top”. This message makes it obvious who her target audience and also shows how she view today’s economy. Through examining Hilary’s ad, I can further analyze Bill Clinton’s ad and figure out their ways of getting out the same message about the working class or ordinary Americans.

Campaign Ad Analysis-Shen Befoune

Daisy Annembom Shen Befoune

Historical option: http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1964

I chose the campaign ad for Barry Goldwater during the 1964 election, entitled “We will bury you.” The main objective of this ad seems to be to use the innocence of children to tap in to the hearts of the American public. The ad sells him as a protector of the rights of the children and their freedom to grow up to be Americans and nothing else. The components of this ad are: The video starts with a shot of the front of the school and something that looks like a flagpole, although the flag is not in the shot. The video immediately cuts to a classroom with a flag hoisted in the front of the class and other unclear images, intentionally placed in the background, near the blackboard. There is a toy structure of what looks like the white house, on a table in the background. Then, we have the children rushing in from both sides of the class to the front of the flag. The girls rushed in on one side and the boys on the other. Their teacher instructs them to place their hands over their hearts, as they recite the pledge of allegiance. All the children in this video are white and their dress code emulates what middle-class to rich American children wore, going to school. Also in the video, even though half of the children in the video were girls, we only see the boys’ faces. The only female face shown in the video is that of the teacher. Already, the video seems to be aiming towards the rich and middle-class, white, male Americans. These are the people he is pledging to look out for and so everyone else that did not fall into these categories was not of much priority. As the children recite the first or first two lines of the pledge, “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America..,” the video cuts to Russian leader, Nikita Kruschchev, giving his speech in Russian, and the video lends us subtitles and translates what he says in that moment to “ WE WILL BURY YOU.” The video then goes back to the children in the classroom still reciting the pledge, “…for which it stands; one nation under God…,” and then goes back to the Russian leader’s speech, which he says, “YOUR CHILDREN WILL BE COMMUNISTS.” Kruschchev is addressing his people in a very harsh tone and harsh facial expressions. His hand movements are forceful as he points his finger out to the people. Then it cuts back to the classroom where the pledge was finished, and the children and teacher were walking out. At this point in the video we get to see and hear from Barry Goldwater himself, who then expresses his want to make sure that the children grew up as Americans, and he also urges that the possibility of that happening relies on the clarity of those intensions. Then there is a still of him and a voice-over that comes on to say, “In your hearts, you know he’s right. Vote for Barry Goldwater.” Throughout the video, there is no background music, which creates a really serious tone for the video and really pronounces the seriousness of the issues he is presenting and his commitment as well.

Campaign Ad Analysis

Emir Omeragic

Option #1:

After the conclusion of the 2016 Presidential Election I have decided to focus my in depth ad comparison on ads aired in the key decisive state of Pennsylvania. All three of these ads are in favor of Donald Trump (Candidate committee sponsored ad) and include the following categories: economy, and jobs. In the primary ad Trump begins by attacking Hillary Clinton’s 30 years in Washington. Within the video he blames her for the rise of taxes, spread of terrorism, and jobs vanished. According to this ad, Donald J. Trump will bring “Real Change” unlike something Clinton can offer.

In comparison to color/value in the other two ads, Hilary Clinton is visibly darker in the beginning and Trump comes in all three ads seemingly somewhat angelic as a bright light surrounds him. The large contrast with Clinton is what emphasizes the Angel versus Devil dynamic Trump tries to portray in these ads. Although, in regards to point of view, the primary ad like the second ad use videos of struggling Americans when they discuss how Hillary has caused tax raises and “crushed” the middle class. The use of struggling Americans is to place the watcher in their point of view and be more sympathetic with the struggling American essentially making them anti-Clinton. Although the third one emphasizes the value of your vote “decided by you” as the video is focused around a middle aged white woman who Donald Trump is struggling getting to vote for him after the controversy with his treatment towards women.

These three ads still have many comparisons worth noting that make them seem repetitive. They all begin by attempting to lower your view on Clinton and what she has done with her years in politics, followed by a “promise” of what a greater America lead by Donald Trump entails. Men narrate all three ads with very slight differences in their tone. The key theme within all three of these ads is the Angel versus Devil, the good versus Bad that Trump and his committee send as a message, which clearly worked as they won the state of Pennsylvania.

Primary Ad:  http://politicaladarchive.org/ad/PolAd_HillaryClinton_DonaldTrump_o35rq/

Second Ad:  http://politicaladarchive.org/ad/PolAd_HillaryClinton_DonaldTrump_o5dtl/

Third Ad:  http://politicaladarchive.org/ad/PolAd_HillaryClinton_DonaldTrump_5yuou/

 

Campaign Ad Analysis Post & Paper Overview

Moctar Diarra

Link:http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1972

Campaign Ad Analysis Post & Paper Overview

            The video I’ve chosen to analyze is the 1972 Nixon presidential campaign ad called McGovern’s Defense. This Nixon ad, based on the country’s defense was obviously made to discredit his democratic opponent, McGovern, in regard to his plans with the military, but what are the elements that make up this ad? Firstly, focusing on the visual, the 1st Three fourths of the video are dedicated to images of a toy army. This toy army being zoomed into, becomes the central figure of every shot. And in this miniature army we have Green Toy Soldiers, Replica navy men, planes, boats and even floats. The green soldiers are the first to be shown, taking up the entire screen with a face close up, which may be detailing their importance. All these green soldiers have distinguishable faces, although they are very simplistic and share similarities. The different sections of the soldiers that are supposed to stand together, are here divided into sections that make it easy for some to be pushed aside. The pushing aside begins when a seemingly omnipotent hand shows up to swipe aside the army just as the narrator starts speaking about President Nixon’s opponent, showing a possible link between the 2. The hand is active for most of the video, and on cue. Every time cutting back is mentioned, these hands take away most of the army, section by section. Here, we don’t get close ups like we had had prior to the Hand showing up, now the miniature servicemen all resemble each other with their hidden faces heavily shaded. This could make them seem easily disposable. (The lack of compassion for army men is an aspect that is criticized.) All of the sudden, the parts of the army that were pushed aside are all seen in different piles, again, without any close ups. The audio starts being more noticeable here because, first, the narrator talks about American security and stops discussing McGovern altogether, and then the music changes. The background music goes from just simple drums in the first part, the type of drums played during wars in the past by drummer boys, to a brass riddled fanfare once President Nixon is brought up. This is when the second part of the video begins, whilst this part is shorter than the first one, it is much more lively, because first of all we have real people and a real environment. Here, we don’t only hear about the candidate and his plan but we see him in the midst of the action, speaking to, and guiding army men (seemingly, a General). The narrator’s choice of words changes here as well, as he went from using abrasive words and phrases such as cut or cutting into, with many numbers and technical terms in between to a wholly different word cloud. In the second part the words used are key words such as peace, negotiate, believe, strength and America, right before Nixon’s name is brought to the screen.

Word Document Version : ad-analysis