Flower power?

Antiwar protesters revive the famous "daisy" ad. We assemble our panel of experts and ask them: Do they love it, or do they not?

By Suzy Hansen

Jan 18, 2003 | This week, the antiwar group MoveOn.org began purchasing airtime in 13 major American cities for its remake of the infamous 1964 "daisy ad." The original ad was President Lyndon Johnson's attempt to portray his opponent in that year's election, Barry Goldwater, as a senseless warmonger who would lead the United States into nuclear war. Its dark message created an overwhelmingly negative public response, and it was yanked quickly from the airwaves. But the ad -- largely seen as the first "negative TV ad" -- had an unquestioned impact.

MoveOn's version features many of the same, affecting images from the old one: a young girl idly plucking petals from a daisy, ominous voice-overs suggesting that a politician (this time, President Bush) is leading us in a dangerous direction, and then apocalyptic visions of nuclear devastation.

First, you, Salon reader, should view both ads and decide what you think.

To view the original 1964 ad, click here.

To view MoveOn's ad, click here.

Then see if you agree with our assembled group of experts:

Sean Wilentz, Dayton-Stockton professor of history at Princeton University and a contributing editor to the New Republic:

There it is. The little girl picking the flower. It's just like the other one, except it's in color. It's scary. It's meant to be scary. They're trying to scare people much as Johnson did in 1964. They're trying to break the media-induced torpor and the way the cable-media has pumped up the war.

OK, let's say the inspectors work and they find stuff. Are we then justified in going to war? Perhaps. I suppose they would say that they're pointing out the genuine risks. Are we going to nuclear war? I doubt it. But it's not really saying that we shouldn't go to war. It's saying, "Let the inspections work."

They took the original daisy ad off after one round. People went nuts, especially the Goldwater people. I saw it when I was 13; it was summer, it was during a time when a lot of people were watching TV. It had an incredible impact. You saw it and said, "Holy smoke." It took things to another level. I had never seen another ad like that. My parents were shocked, too. I mean, dissertations were probably written about that ad. I think LBJ would have won without it. It probably didn't win or lose him any states. But it was a real moment in advertising history. This is not that. It's a reprise of that.

The Bush administration will ignore it. Rove will find a way to use it to his advantage. But the antiwar movement has mostly been ignored by the media and this is an attempt to get the attention of the likes of you. And it's worked. After the march this weekend, the antiwar movement will get more attention, I think. I'm not sure why that is; it's the same weirdos down there. But MoveOn -- they started during the impeachment, they're an ad hoc, liberal reform group that's been pushing for public opinion on the Internet. That's something that's interesting about it. In 1964, a political campaign hired a big fancy ad agency to this. This time, it was generated by the Internet.

"Let the Inspectors Work" is a problem. There's a whole spectrum of opinion on Iraq that ranges from "Bomb the hell out of them" to "Hands off." In the middle, there's the "Let the inspectors do their job" people. It looks to me like it's antiwar, but really it's less hard-line than that. What makes it odd is that with that strong of an image, one would expect an equally strong message. But you're left in limbo. Bush, for all his saber rattling, is letting the inspectors work. So what's their position? If the inspectors find something, do we then go to war?

It suggests that Bush is trigger-happy and doesn't understand the consequences of war and that this could end up being a world conflagration. That's what the images say. Are we really on the edge of nuclear holocaust? I don't think so.

- - - - - - - - - -

Augusten Burroughs, a former advertising creative director and the author of a recent best-selling memoir, "Running With Scissors," whose next book, "Dry," will be released this summer:

What an absolutely hideous commercial! If one insists on featuring a child in a spot, I would think that one would first and foremost insist upon a child who could act. And who did not have -- as this child appears to have -- a curious facial rash. I won't even address the $7 spent on wardrobe. Let's move straight to the graphic, powerful scenes of war. Here, juxtaposed with the shots of the sweet, innocent "little girl," this war footage is supposed to fill us with terror. "If a bomb like that explodes here... that precious little girl could die!" Instead, these scenes of destruction and firepower have the opposite, thrilling effect. The poor quality of the video footage reminds us that it's been a long time since we've had a really good war. The media coverage would be spectacular, thanks to today's sophisticated digital video cameras. A new war would be great TV. Yeah, motherfucker, BRING IT ON! All the while, a voiceover drones on, hypothesizing. "Maybe. . . maybe. . . maybe. . ." By the third "Maybe" one has simply stopped listening and is instead looking at the explosions and wondering what sort of graphic design elements CNN will create when the war finally does happen. Will they include an explosion-orange color in their new War on Iraq graphics? Or is this color considered proprietary to "Connie Chung Tonight"?

Alas, the greatest crime this ad commits is that it does not respect its viewer's intelligence. It uses a cheap scare tactic, an easy, manipulative play for sympathy. And it does this with production values that are far below the industry standard. I believe it is the moral responsibility of the creatives who conceived of this commercial to kill themselves. And take the little girl with them.

Next Page: "This takes advantage of the country's mood of fear since Sept. 11"

• View blog reactions