I think you are right. I was watching a cspan show on the People's History of the US which is popular on campuses now. It was a totally different view of us. There were pieces from Indians, labor organizers, black activists,,they really view things so differently. And the audience was mostly white women who were eating it up like crazy.
If they could come to understand their identity as deeper than that, there would be the precondition for their reassessment of these political notions.
Such changes, however, are not usually likely unless they become dis-illusioned. This is why political persuasion of those who are truly opposed, is so frustrating and has such small prospect of success.
So many ARE up for grabs, however, because they are not acqauinted with their own fundamental principles--they are not conscious of them, despite the role of those principles in their lives.
Let's take, for example, the notion of section9 that Condi's physical appearance and dress could be decisive with certain voters in a contest with Hillary. For instance, would the NY fashionpolice types go for Condi over Hillary if they thought she was more savvy, more hip, more attractive than Hillary ---despite the possible unattractiveness [for them] of the political principles which Condi would represent?
Maybe only those who are truly unconscious of their own fundamental principles would be available for such persuasion. That's OK because these are the more numerous types anyhow.
But perhaps section9 means more than that: that even very leftist women (at least) would be attracted to a fit and savvy Condi over a dumpy Hillary. If that is what Chirs means, why does he think that this is true? I liked his analysis, and wonder how far he thinks that it goes.
Section9 uses the language that Condi--who does nothing by accident--is sending signals to various audiences [including her Main Enemy who she wishes to dislocate]. Are those signals to the differing audiences intended to be consciously or unconsciously received?