Hillary's "Change" Ad Uses Edwards' Old Theme Music

The Irony of running a TV commercial in New Hampshire called "Ready for Change" that uses the exact same commerical song as another candidate you are following is too funny to ignore.

Edwards Rolled out this TV commercial in New Hampshire 2 months ago.  Listen Carefully to the song.  It's more than symbolic that the candidate that's leading the Democrats, Edwards is copied by the Washington Insider, Hillary Clinton, who steals the exact same song in a TV ad called funny enough "Ready for Change"...

I'm not making this up...  I thought Hillary had so much money, can't she get an original song from the song library. Or at least one that wasn't used this cycle by another Democrat?... This sort of symbolizes Hillary's idea of change, just slap the same musical score over some scenery and say "change" a few times and hope no one notices


Tags: Edwards (all tags)




This is just hilarious. Did Edwards compose the song himself? How can Hillary steal 'his song'?


by areyouready 2007-09-05 09:01AM | 0 recs
You know what I think? I think Clinton had that song picked months ago and an Edwards spy found out about it and they're actually the ones who stole the song because they're all just jealous of Hillary. Clinton is #1 hooooooray. Are YOU ready? I know I am.

Hillary=Experience+Change, Everyone Else=Stupid

by HatchInBrooklyn 2007-09-05 09:08AM | 0 recs
Seriously though.

Unless that's a public domain work, whoever licensed that composition to the Edwards campaign must have failed to include a standard exclusivity clause in the contract. For example if you license a piece of music for a soft drink ad, you normally stipulate that for the duration of the license no other soft drink company can buy the rights to use the same music. I would assume the same applies for a campaign ad. The only other possibility is that one or both of the campaigns didn't bother to license the music at all, which is arguably worse... sort of like Bush using "Still The One" in 2004 without getting permission.

by HatchInBrooklyn 2007-09-05 09:16AM | 0 recs
I'll change the title

a bit but it's just amusing that in a change ad the campaign re-uses the same song....

same old song and dance my friend - aerosmith

And yes there are picture and song libraries that can be used again and again...

by TarHeel 2007-09-05 09:17AM | 0 recs

Yeah, that is funny.  Although nothing was funnier this week than hypocrite Edwards telling people to get rid of their SUV's and then it being found out he owns 2 of them, and one had been purchased within the year.

by reasonwarrior 2007-09-05 11:43AM | 0 recs


by areyouready 2007-09-05 11:51AM | 0 recs
of course one was

a HYBRID. and the other a midsize chrysler SUV...

all made in America

by TarHeel 2007-09-05 11:54AM | 0 recs
a hybrid and midsize chrysler

Thanks Tarheel for setting it straight!

by yann123 2007-09-06 08:13AM | 0 recs
it's frickin hillarious

no matter what candidate you support.

using "ready to change" with a recycled song from another candidate is funny...

by TarHeel 2007-09-05 09:04AM | 0 recs
Ha! That's funny.

It is great music.  But, seriously, who cares?

by bookgrl 2007-09-05 09:07AM | 0 recs
The ad song is not exactly an original choice

I personally think the consultants just got the themes from a music library of potential campaign themes. It is not really that big of a world in the consultant class and they tend to think on similar lines.

Sorry Tarheel, hate to disagree with you here,  but no issue for me here. "stealing" is overstating it.

by Pravin 2007-09-05 09:14AM | 0 recs

but I think it symbolizes what Hillary thinks "change" is.

slap the same music over a different facade...

by TarHeel 2007-09-05 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Steals Edwards' TV Commercial Song Fro

it's rather nondescript music sold commercially.  I doubt the Clinton campaign noticed.  Someone should take it up with the person selling the rights.

As far as trying to make this an issue, I suppose if you have nothing else....

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-09-05 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Steals Edwards' TV Commercial Song Fro

Oh, we have plenty else.

Apparently you don't, however, much like your candidate.

by ThunderHawk 2007-09-05 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Steals Edwards' TV Commercial Song Fro

If you have plenty else, then write a diary about some of it.  I hope it's a novel and intriguing argument, like calling Hillary "polarizing."

Some partisans on this site act like they're a meter maid who has to issue a certain number of tickets per day.

The redeeming feature of this particular diary is that you don't have to take it 100% seriously.  But if anyone really finds it significant which campaign's ad people were the first to use a particular piece of stock music, I kinda worry about you.

by Steve M 2007-09-05 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Steals Edwards' TV Commercial Song Fro

52% of voters stating they wouldn't vote for Hillary?  Now THAT is something else.

Isn't it.

Let's just go ahead and nominate someone unelectable, and then we can have a pity party and bitch and moan for the next 4 years.  Appealing to many of you, I know, but not my kind of gig, thanks.

by ThunderHawk 2007-09-05 10:18AM | 0 recs
Hey be positive

if all the starts Align Hillary could win with  43% of the Vote like Bill did in 1992 if we can get a third party brownback type....

People forget bill never got 50% in 92

by TarHeel 2007-09-05 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Steals Edwards' TV Commercial Song Fro

The poll I saw just the other day had the number at 43%.  Gosh, maybe it's not set in stone after all.

I don't know the source for that 52% number but I sorta have the feeling that people like yourself might be trumpeting a number from a single poll several months ago as though it were gospel.  I don't know that, I just know that's how the game is often played.

It's also baffling to me how, if a majority of Americans won't vote for Hillary under any circumstances, she keeps winning the majority of the head-to-head polling matchups against Republicans.  Strange.

by Steve M 2007-09-05 10:41AM | 0 recs
Mason-Dixon Polling

a few months ago had 52% of likely general election voters saying they would not vote for Hillary "under any circumstances"

by TarHeel 2007-09-05 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Mason-Dixon Polling

So do you think that poll is the gospel, and all the polls that come up with lower numbers are wrong, because 52% is the number that's most convenient to repeat?

Don't you find it odd that Hillary wins so many general election matchups if a majority of people won't vote for her under any circumstances?

by Steve M 2007-09-05 10:58AM | 0 recs
Hillary does worse

than generic  democrat and worse than Edwards in most polls where both are compared.

the republicans are running uphill and Hillary makes it most competitive.

in terms of who would never vote for her  I'd say the floor is ~43%, whereas for generic "Democrat" it's probably lower.

there's a reason why Schweitzer and WEbb publicly campaign with Edwards but only private fundraise with Hillary

by TarHeel 2007-09-05 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary does worse

But what you're saying here is substantially weaker than "Thunderhawk"'s original claim that Hillary is unelectable.  Saying that she gives the Republicans the best chance, while I'm not sure I agree with it, is a much more supportable claim.

If you want to talk pure electability, I think Hillary has the worst numbers because she's much better defined among the electorate than everyone else is.  That's why "generic Dem" always does great, because generic Dem has no negatives and real candidates always have negatives.

But by the time November 2008 rolls around, the candidate will be extremely well-defined, no matter how much of an enigma we choose to nominate.  So in all seriousness, I'm not sure if Hillary will really have any more trouble than the other Democrats, or if it's simply a function of the fact that she's already been through the wringer which the other candidates have yet to pass through.

by Steve M 2007-09-05 11:33AM | 0 recs
Edwards has been pretty well

trashed in 04 and the most in 08.

so the argument the clintons make doesn't completely hold up against Edwards.

Also,  if it were Edwards vs. Giuliani , Giuliani's horrific personal life would come into play and have negative effects that aren't showing up in polls now, but would be a wash against Hillary...

by TarHeel 2007-09-05 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards has been pretty well

Eh, I dunno about that.  Giuliani has been a raging asshole to his family all these years.  Hillary is mostly the victim of Bill's naughty conduct.

We all have different views about how the election will play out, of course, but I don't think people are going to be very receptive to hearing the same old crap about the Clintons.  At this stage in the game, I think that stuff will mostly backfire.

by Steve M 2007-09-05 11:41AM | 0 recs
I'm fairly well informed

and I didn't know that Giuliani was married to his cousin for 10 years.

trust me there's a lot people outside of NY don't know about Giuliani - particularly his personal life that conservative americans won't like.  Edwards would get enough of these traditional republicans/indys to win big if it were Giuliani.

by TarHeel 2007-09-05 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm fairly well informed

I think you misunderstood me.  I agree that most people don't know anything about Giuliani's personal life, just that he's supposedly the hero of 9/11, and that's why I think he will get rolled once he finally comes under real scrutiny.

I just meant that Hillary's past, having to deal with a cheating husband and all that, doesn't really serve to neutralize Giuliani's past because Giuliani, unlike Hillary, was the actual bad guy in his stories.

I think it's undeniable that Edwards has a natural edge among culturally conservative voters, but if you watch what's going on in Iowa, I think Hillary is doing a better job making that connection than you might expect.  We'll be okay whoever the nominee is.

by Steve M 2007-09-05 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm fairly well informed


I guess you could even imagine sympathy for Hillary ... interesting. hadn't thought about it..

by TarHeel 2007-09-05 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm fairly well informed

By the way, Giuliani may have married his second cousin, but in New York it's actually legal to marry your first cousin, too.  A little something I picked up on the bar exam.

by Steve M 2007-09-05 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Steals Edwards' TV Commercial Song Fro

It depends on what poll you look at, really.  The overall average is between 45-47%.

by iamready 2007-09-05 10:43AM | 0 recs
By the by, it's a score not a song. n/t

by bookgrl 2007-09-05 09:20AM | 0 recs
got me

but seriously ,   this symbolizes the change Hillary stands for.

by TarHeel 2007-09-05 09:22AM | 0 recs
Seriously, FU, I mean, no offense,

John Edwards is a great candidate.  He's my second choice, but yeah, damn it, Hillary is change.  I understand you can't see that, but she is for me, and millions of other good Democrats.

I wasn't trying to get you.  It's a musical score not a song.

by bookgrl 2007-09-05 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Seriously, FU, I mean, no offense,


Explain to us how she is an agent of change.  Don't forget to include in your explanation how living in DC for the past 15 years and surrounding yourself with DC insiders while perfecting the fine art of triangulation causes one to become an agent of change.

And don't forget to mention how the Clintons tried, in favor of one of their DLC insiders, to prevent Dean from obtaining  his DNC post.

We await with anticipation.

by ThunderHawk 2007-09-05 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Seriously, FU, I mean, no offense,

She is not an agent of change.  In fact, she is totally different from Edwards and Obama, on practically most things.  And for anyone to say she is change, who brags that lobbyists represents the average american, is really out of touch.  They are, if they made that statement.

by iamready 2007-09-05 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Seriously, FU, I mean, no offense,

Because we've never had a president who spent her adult life advocating for children.

by bookgrl 2007-09-05 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Seriously, FU, I mean, no offense,

That's the big change? Seriously?

by Junior Bug 2007-09-05 09:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Reuses Edwards' TV Commercial Song in

Is it actually the same?  I really couldn't tell.

by Steve M 2007-09-05 09:21AM | 0 recs
listen again

it is an overlapping part of the score.

there's a distinctive trumpet part, and yes there are video and music libraries that get used over and over again.

by TarHeel 2007-09-05 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: listen again

I guess you're right.  I really didn't hear the trumpet part the first time I listened to Edwards' ad.  Hillary's ad is more low-key so it stands out more.

It kinda scares me that you picked up on this, hehe, unless you got it from somewhere else.

by Steve M 2007-09-05 09:27AM | 0 recs
I remember the Edwards ad

cause of the "uplifting" music.....

I'm good at song recognition...

by TarHeel 2007-09-05 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Recycles Edwards' NH TV Commercial Son

Oh my God.

The irony of recycling someone else's musical selection while claiming to be an agent of change is positively stunning and absolutely hilarious!  

Classic!  Thanks for the laugh, HilCorp.

by ThunderHawk 2007-09-05 09:57AM | 0 recs
it reminds me

of when she started out and they forgot to turn her mic off with the star spangled banner.

let's see how much play this gaffe gets.

by TarHeel 2007-09-05 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: it reminds me

Well, at least she isn't, uh, "singing" in this one.

And boy did she look pissed when she was yelling at those union folks in Iowa on Monday.  I'll bet they didn't show up to their Labor Fest celebration expecting to be scolded.

by ThunderHawk 2007-09-05 10:05AM | 0 recs


Edwards leads yet again, and the other candidates follow - this time with adopting Edwards stance on music! haha, she got punked.

by KainIIIC 2007-09-05 10:07AM | 0 recs
Come on!

Where's the ORIGINALITY in choosing your own music. Edwards Ad ISN"T THAT OLD! And it was memorable in it's uplifting approach.... Jeez.... you'd almost think that Hillary & Co believe the people are too stupid to notice anyway.

Youtube is FOREVER people! Get a clue!

by cosbo 2007-09-05 10:28AM | 0 recs
there's a reason

Hillary's sweet spot is low information voters.

I'm just amazed at how  compliant the press is.

Hillary's old banner was "change"

richardson  says"change + experience" and now it's on Hillary's "new" banner

by TarHeel 2007-09-05 10:32AM | 0 recs
Here is change

David Mizner's endorsement of Edwards:
http://www.mydd.com/hotlist/add/2007/9/4 /9755/69777/displaystory
Why Edwards? Because he rejects neoliberalism. Because he preaches enlightened populism. Because he's running to the left. Because he would fight the amorality of the Market with the morality of progressivism. Because he opposes the Global War on Terror. Because he's getting better and bolder. Because he's capable of outrage. Because he's proud to be a progressive. Because he would win.

But one reason rises above all others: the stated and demonstrated rationale of his campaign is to fight inequality. The monstrous power held by the few at the expense of the many causes unnecessary hardship and agony. It hurts, it maims, it kills. It threatens what Thomas Frank calls the Middle Class Republic. It threatens our democracy and our freedom. And because power corrupts, because economic insecurity breeds fear and fear breeds militarism, because corporations have a vested interest in war and place profits above all else, the disproportionate power of the few threatens humankind.

Call it what you will--our class war, our bleeding wound, our dirty open secret--it's the problem of our time, and John Edwards has chosen to spend his political life addressing it.

And if everyone from Hillary Clinton to Mike Huckabee now talks about our class divisions, it's in part because Edwards began to do so at the national level in 2003, when it was a deeply unfashionable thing to do. It was on the advice of no consultant, at the suggestion of no poll that Edwards took it on himself in 2003 to speak out against inequality. His policy prescriptions have evolved in the last four years but the wound targeted by those prescriptions has stayed the same.

John Edwards is this century's most prominent progressive populist, the candidate most likely to give more power to more people. This alone makes him worthy of the presidency.

by mrobinsong 2007-09-05 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Recycles

Wow , Ive never seen a rival campaign 'completly' lift off an ad from an opponent and use it as their own...Im sure they've seen the Edwards ad before.

Music and everything is the same...they didnt even try to hide it a bit...Both ads looks and sound the same to me.

by JaeHood 2007-09-05 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Recycles

and she just recycled the Dinner with Barack, for Lunch with Hillary.  What is it?  Small donors ain't givin'?  No more big checks?

by iamready 2007-09-05 10:35AM | 0 recs
I don't think either ad is

particularly good... I have to say the only ads that have been effective are  by Richardson.

However, there's something so symbolic about Hillary  claiming the "change" mantel form obama and Edwards  re-using the same song that's already been played out

by TarHeel 2007-09-05 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think either ad is

it just confirms, she is sooooo, yesterday...

by iamready 2007-09-05 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Recycles

Both these ads are so safe...they will be lost.  Edwards' is a bit better, but nethier are really that good - C'mon charriots of fire style music is so 1990s campaign ad.  Get something new in there.  How bout some Ben Harper or an apple vs. pc style ad.

by CardBoard 2007-09-05 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Recycles

A 'Hi I'm supporting Barack Obama" vs. "Hello I'm a D.C. lobbyists" ad would be great

by CardBoard 2007-09-05 11:23AM | 0 recs
that Edwards ad

was only run in new hampshire and it finished 2 months ago.

I agree they are not great ads

by TarHeel 2007-09-05 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Recycles

How bout some Ben Harper or an apple vs. pc style ad

You want the candidates to target their ads at the demographic group that doesn't vote?

Presidential campaign ads are targeted at middle america. Chevy, Pepsi, etc. Why? Because most Americans are middle America.

If you don't understand that, you will have a frustrating year following the campaigns.

by hwc 2007-09-05 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Recycles

Bill White in Houston has used these very well

by CardBoard 2007-09-05 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Recycles

Hillary Clinton is not running in a Houston Mayors race.

by hwc 2007-09-06 01:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Recycles Edwards' NH TV Commercial Son

This is quite funny, i doubt it will be an issue though

whats Edwards going to do "she used the same music as me" Waahh.

by sepulvedaj3 2007-09-05 11:33AM | 0 recs
Funny, ironic, but not so bad as...

when Clinton recently spoke about New Orleans and took Edwards's long held response virtually word for word.

by citizen53 2007-09-05 11:34AM | 0 recs
Mrs. Clinton need to stick with

the experience mantra, not embracing the change mantra.  Because it is laughable.  She is not the change candidate.

by caroline becker 2007-09-05 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's "Change" Ad

I wish we had a poll in this diary.

I'd like to see the number of people who think Hillary's campaign intentionally used the same music Edwards had already used, versus the number of people who think it's just one of those semi-embarrassing things that happen.

I think it would be revealing.  I mean, in a rational universe, it's difficult to see how anyone would put themselves in the first category, but apparently it's a common belief.

by Steve M 2007-09-05 11:37AM | 0 recs
the ads suck

I just think it shows Hillary's campaign is NOT mistake free.

you'd hope the ad firm would at least watch the few ads of Obama and Edwards to make sure they weren't too similar.

by TarHeel 2007-09-05 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: the ads suck

That's an interesting point, although I think any candidate would be happy to run a campaign where this was their biggest mistake.  It's not Hillary's biggest mistake, of course, nor is it her first, but I don't think it's debatable that she's running a very solid campaign so far.  That doesn't mean you have to like it, of course.

I think you've made a cute point with this diary, and if I were an anti-Hillary person I'd get a chuckle out of it too, but I think you have to stretch to make any kind of larger point out of it.  I mean, what happens when we find some other political ad that used this same, reasonably generic music, even before Edwards?

by Steve M 2007-09-05 11:45AM | 0 recs
I'm sure this song

has been used before.

it comes from a licensed library...

I have no doubt it has,  but at least don't use the same song for the same cycle - PARTICULALRLY when the ad is called change

by TarHeel 2007-09-05 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's "Change" Ad

I think it was almost certainly intentional.

Most people hear ads more than they watch them. Off to the fridge. Cooking dinner. On in the background. Clinton just took the music that New Hamphsire voters have been hearing on campaign ads and made it her own. There is also a very good possibility that she just forced the strapped for cash Edwards campaign back to the studio to redo every ad they've got in the can.

by hwc 2007-09-05 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's "Change" Ad

they are both bad ads IMHO.

Edwards stopped running that one months ago

hopefully he won't ressurect it

by TarHeel 2007-09-05 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's "Change" Ad

The slogan "It's time to be patriotic about something other than war" is pretty good, but yeah the rest of the Ad is kind of meh, not top-quality like they could be.

by KainIIIC 2007-09-05 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's "Change" Ad

Isn't it nothing more than an embarrassing incident, kind of like two dignitaries showing up at an event wearing exactly the same color dress?

I think that people are going just a little overboard when see this incident as anything more than a little faux pas.

by misscee 2007-09-05 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's "Change" Ad Uses

As the media picked up on that yet?..

by JaeHood 2007-09-05 12:00PM | 0 recs
it would be really funny

to find MSM pundits talking about how great the music is....

by TarHeel 2007-09-05 12:05PM | 0 recs
I think the campaign

would have to put out a statement for the media to pick up on it.

otherwise it's not considered "news"

by TarHeel 2007-09-05 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's "Change" Ad Uses


by JaeHood 2007-09-05 12:00PM | 0 recs
I don't see the big deal

What pol has claimed the rights to U2's 'A Beautiful Day' for instance.  Seems like you hear that one a ton at various campaign rallies.

In the end it ain't about the music.

by dpANDREWS 2007-09-05 12:33PM | 0 recs
You can't buy change

but you can steal it I guess.

Lets see if voters buy it.

by okamichan13 2007-09-05 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's "Change" Ad

I heard that Edwards sneezed today. Hillary is older than Edwards and is likely to have sneezed first. Edwards is such a copycat.

by bowiegeek 2007-09-05 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's "Change" Ad

I have it on good authority that Edwards breathed oxygen today. How dare he copy Hillary.

by bowiegeek 2007-09-05 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's "Change" Ad

Hillary Breathes?

by CardBoard 2007-09-05 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's "Change" Ad

Oh absolutely, about as easily and breezily as the details of Obama's policy credentials thus far.

by bowiegeek 2007-09-05 09:55PM | 0 recs

OMG, it's the end of the world, Clinton uses the same song as Edwards! Seriously, what's the problem?

by RJEvans 2007-09-05 03:52PM | 0 recs
So This Is

Activist Blogging.

by Edgar08 2007-09-06 02:06AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads