Talk:Daisy (advertisement)/Archive 1

Needs Major Work
I think that this article needs a lot of work. The Daisy Ad is the single most important piece of advertising ever, and one of the most significant things (in terms of impact on the world) ever broadcast on television. Yet we don't even have an image from the ad. There should be much longer segments contextualizing the creation of the ad and how it shaped American politics and advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.221.152 (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It was kind of a succès de scandale in 1964, and had a certain impact on the election that year (though not necessarily an overwhelming one), but according to what criteria is it the "single most important piece of advertising ever"? Even more important for Wikipedia, has any reliable source said that it's the "single most important piece of advertising ever"? AnonMoos (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Which nuclear test?
Can anyone determine which nuclear test the explosion is taken from? LukeSurlt c 19:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Commercial-LBJ1964ElectionAdDaisyGirl.ogv to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Commercial-LBJ1964ElectionAdDaisyGirl.ogv will be appearing as picture of the day on September 7, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-09-07. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

old talk
This article should be renamed using "advertisement", not "commercial". A commercial involves commerce; an advertisement can be for a non-commercial purpose. Please let us use proper wording. Alfred Legrand 20:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it shouldn't. That's an etymological fallacy. Commercial in common parlance equals a television spot during a break in a show. An advertisment is a flyer trying to get one to buy somthing. Thanatosimii 01:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Who was 'Daisy' and what became of her? Adambisset 19:49, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The phrasing of the MoveOn.org ad/commercial leaves me uncertain if it was ever completed or ever aired. Can someone clarify?--Thatnewguy 01:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It aired onceHawk405359 02:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I stumbled across the article Fear Mongering. I don't know enough about the ad described, or this one, to make any judgments on what should be done with the article. What do you recommend? --hello,gadr e n 02:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Related slogan
One of Goldwater's slogans was "In your heart you know he's right", and in reply an anti-Goldwater slogan was "In your heart you know he might" (i.e. might press the button). AnonMoos 16:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, no … the "counter-slogan" was, "and in your gut, you know he's nuts." —MicahBrwn (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Tom Tancredo
Tom Tancredo's recent ad uses a similar theme: a hooded terrorist enters a mall with a backpack and abandons it near a group of playing children. He leaves and the pack, which conceals a bomb, detonates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.50.19 (talk) 03:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Elements not made clear
Lycurgus (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The ad was overkill, in the year after the Kennedy assassination LBJ was extremely popular
 * 2) In 1964 Goldwater (and conservativism generally) was a radical fringe (whence the need for "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice"). The ad played on this.


 * 1) Johnson didn't need it to win, but it's a lot easier to be confident of that after the final votes have been tabulated than when in the middle of a campaign.
 * 2) Goldwater was hard right in the context of 1964, but pretty much by definition, the nominee of one of the two major parties is not "radical fringe" (the John Birch society was radical fringe). His real problem was that he was vulnerable to being portrayed as an extremist, so that he should have been extremely sensitive to saying things which would give that impression... AnonMoos (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree, a 2-party system nominee cannot be "fringe". However the Birchers (at that time) were considered beyond the fringe, basically like the KKK or neo-nazis. Today they would just be considered GOP base, like the Tea Party whatever. Goldwater was not one of them by any means ( "... and let me remind you that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue") but as you say he was hard Right in '64. Another thing that's not fully conveyed is how oppressive the threat of nuclear war was at that time, this is about the time of the movies "Fail Safe" and "Dr. Strangelove" as well as just 2 years after the missile crisis. In '64 conservatism had not yet taken over the old GOP and there was an amorphous gap between that movement waiting in the wings to do so (15 years later) and a national figure like Goldwater. Lycurgus (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

New information in "Arizona Republic" 50th anniversary newspaper article
To any interested editors who want to update the article, there is an in-depth article on the website of the newspaper The Arizona Republic (Senator Goldwater's home state) that has lots of detailed information, some of it that differs from the Wiki article; for example, the girl was three years old, not two. EXCERPT: "The groundbreaking commercial's official title was "Peace, Little Girl," but history forever associates it with the anonymous 3-year-old tot from Pine Beach, N.J., who starred in it: "Daisy Girl."

In 1964, she was Monique Corzilius, who under the professional name "Monique Cozy" had a brief but prolific career as a child model.

Today she is Monique Luiz, 53, a human-resources supervisor at a downtown Phoenix bank.

Her modeling success is documented in a family scrapbook compiled by her father, Frederick Corzilius, who died in 2012. From the age of 1½ to about 7 or 8, she appeared in ads for Kodak, Velveeta, Lipton, Hostess, Prudential Insurance and other products in mass-circulation magazines such as Life, Look,Reader's Digest, McCall's and Redbook.

Monique even made the cover of the Sept. 25, 1964, issue of Time via an image of the "Daisy" commercial."

Full article with video at: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2014/09/07/daisy-ad-political-attack-remembered/15233151/

5Q5 (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Doesn't seem to give any sources and from the date guessing it was stimuated by the appearance of the wiki article on the front page. Should serve as a starting point for such refs and can certainly be one in and of itself. Lycurgus (talk) 07:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)