On today’s BradCast, our lead story almost certainly would have been the historic acceptance speech of Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Presidential nomination, but for the landmark ruling out today from a federal appeals court in North Carolina. [Audio link to show is below.]
As reported in more detail at The BRAD BLOG earlier today, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down North Carolina’s massive voting restriction law — the nation’s worst since the Jim Crow era — finding that it was enacted by state Republicans with “racially discriminatory intent” that “target[ed] African-Americans with almost surgical precision.” We cover the court’s landmark ruling — which has far-reaching consequences beyond North Carolina and beyond the 2016 election — at the top of today’s show. As I explain, according to legal experts, it seems almost certain now that today’s ruling, following on similarly encouraging blows to GOP Photo ID restrictions in federal courts in both Texas and Wisconsin just last week, will succeed in permanently striking down NC’s purposefully disenfranchising poling place Photo ID restriction, reduction to the early voting period, removal of same-day registration, and other disingenuous and unnecessary restrictions on the franchise.
In short, while there are still a very few narrow corridors for appeal or delay for the vote suppressors here, as explained on the show, this is a long coming and very good day for voting rights in America!
Then, we move on to Clinton’s historic nomination as the first female nominee to be put forward by one of the two major American political parties. For perspective on that, both historical and political, we are joined once again by Salon’s very wise Heather Digby Parton. She and our own Desi Doyen share the personal meaning of Clinton’s nomination and acceptance speech and, yes, even the historical significance of Clinton’s white pant suit. (Yes, there apparently is one!)
We also go on to discuss how and if the speech — and the entire week in Philadelphia, for that matter — met the DNC’s goal for reaching out to the bulk of progressive Sanders supporters as well as disaffected Republicans. Parton seems bullish on both matters, and suggests that Clinton’s speech, embracing “the most progressive Democratic platform in history” (as hashed out recently by both Clinton and Sanders proponents), represents a potential realignment for American politics.
“By embracing the platform in the way that she did,” Parton argues, “having put the Democratic Party at the center of American politics, she has now said, ‘That’s the center. That progressive platform is where the center of America is. Going forward, that’s the mainstream philosophy of America.’ It could end up being important because this election may just finish off a realignment that’s been in the making for a long time.”
Please listen to the show for much more on all of that, as well as our conversation on where the Presidential race and both major political parties are heading from here…with just 100 days left until the 2016 election…on today’s exciting thrill ride otherwise known as The BradCast!…
Just listened to 7/29 show, and the HRC commentary got to me. First off, I am on Brad’s side regarding not feeling like HRC being the first woman nominated is such a big deal. But I feel this for different reasons than him.
I am a woman, but I am a minority. HRC may be a woman but she also represents White Privilege to me. White middle class women may have been discriminated by law and the workplace, etc but my Black mothers, grandmothers, and great grandmothers have always HAD to work. Sometimes they didn’t even have a husband to help with bills and child rearing too. And they faced law discrimination on top of that (technically we still face law discrimination). Some of the Feminist rhetoric just does not resonate with me and the praises of HRC being the first chick nomimated is an example.
My second issue with HRC is that she’s not the average woman. I’m sure her husband being ex U.S. President opened doors for her. If she were some woman- off the street, I’d feel excited but she’s a total insider. She’s been in the game for years and she’s had her husband pulling for her. How does that fit into Feminist rhetoric? I would’ve had more respect for her if she left him after his presidential scandal and made a name for herself. Instead she stayed. Her reasons for staying are her business but that doesn’t seem like strong, Feminist behavior to me.
Plus…the DNC email and Democrat primary race. It may have not been rigged outright but it wasn’t outright fair either. She had insider push to propel her.
If it were a different woman I would be excited, proud, and want to be “with her” but not for HRC. I didn’t support her in primary and won’t support for general election.
I felt the historic pride for Barack because he’s (half) Black. His campaign seemed more grassroots (the underdog). It was exciting to me. As a president, I feel “meh” and that’s another reason I’m not down for HRC. She has no fresh ideas or goals. She’ll keep status quo policies and stay more conservative than liberal (or center).