This is my fight blog
Ringer illustration/Getty Images
By Claire McNear
Rachel Platten’s “Fight Song,” chosen as the unofficial anthem for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, is simply not good. In fact, it’s a poor choice that did a disservice to the campaign and grated on many listeners. It’s time to stop playing it.
Numerous reporters publicly expressed their weariness of the song. Even campaign insiders reportedly ‘stealth-faved’ tweets complaining about its constant presence. For many, regardless of political affiliation, the song became an earworm of annoyance, provoking an internal scream of stop stop STOP every time it came to mind. It’s catchy in the most unwelcome way, like a persistent, irritating jingle. In almost any other context, it might have had its brief moment in the sun and then faded into obscurity. However, the Clinton campaign doubled down, releasing a sanitized, Kidz Bop-esque version for the Democratic National Convention in July, amplifying the discomfort.
While the intention to distinguish Hillary’s campaign from Bill’s, and thus from the Fleetwood Mac association, is understandable, the execution went awry. Imagine the brainstorming session for a campaign anthem that diverges from “Don’t Stop.” Should it feature Stevie Nicks? Definitely not. Should it evoke themes of moving forward from the past? Perhaps not directly with lyrics like yesterday’s gone. Should it resonate with a timeless, enduring quality, like a song from 1977? Maybe, but perhaps something more contemporary. Somewhere in this process, crucial criteria were overlooked: first, that the song should align with the campaign’s message, and second, that it shouldn’t be actively unpleasant to listen to.
What is “Fight Song” actually about? Reports suggest it’s about the challenges of achieving success as a pop artist. More broadly, it’s about overcoming adversity and proving doubters wrong. While resilience is a valuable message, the specific lyrical content of “Fight Song” makes it fundamentally unsuitable for a political campaign, particularly one as high-stakes and scrutinized as Hillary Clinton’s.
Consider the chorus: “This is my fight song.” Acceptable, if generic, campaign language. But then it veers sharply: “Take back my life song. Prove I’m alright song.” This raises immediate questions. Was Hillary Clinton’s life somehow taken from her? Was she in a position of needing to prove she was alright? Did this inadvertently play into narratives pushed by her detractors? Did the campaign intend to suggest a sense of personal struggle and reclamation that simply didn’t resonate with her public image as a seasoned politician? It sounds less like a powerful call to action for a presidential candidate and more like a personal anthem of overcoming individual hardship.
Some might argue that many campaign anthems lack lyrical depth or direct relevance. However, the crucial difference is that those songs were generally not grating. A campaign anthem should inspire and unite, not induce cringes and eye-rolls.
Rachel Platten is undoubtedly a talented artist. She reportedly spent a year and a half crafting “Fight Song,” and its commercial success, selling millions of copies, is undeniable. For personal motivation, or perhaps a first-time jog, it might serve a purpose. But for a high-profile presidential campaign aiming to connect with a broad electorate, it was a baffling and ultimately detrimental choice. Upbeat, bubblegum pop has its place – perhaps in commercials – but not as the soundtrack to a serious political endeavor.
So, let’s move on from the played-out sentiments and vaguely unsettling undertones of “Fight Song.” Let’s keep the wrecking balls of questionable song choices firmly inside the campaign strategy room. And please, for the sake of effective political messaging, let’s never subject anyone to a loud rendition of “Fight Song” in a political context again.
By Claire McNear, who covers sports and culture and lives in Washington, D.C.
