I think they [those such as the audience cajungirl mentioned in her post 991 in response to my 942] view things so differently because they presently understand themselves as identified in terms of the marxist categories of class, ethnicity, gender etc.
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?
Interesting how white women are prey for the left wingers. Two things about women I know {being one}. They always identify with anyone who has victim status and the second , they always blame someone for it, usually a man. But they don't identify with powerful victims say landowners in Rhodesia {I won't use the new name} who had their life's work snatched from them by thugs. See, those victims are well to do men in their book. They like women victims, black victims, thrird world country victims, poor victims, maimed victims, mad victims and so on. And it is always a white man's fault.
Well said, ontos.
A simple googling of "Condi Rice" or "Condoleezza Rice" will lead you to the conclusion that the woman is hated by the left intelligentsia. That's okay. She was despised at Stanford because she took the job of provost seriously and wouldn't hand out tenure like it was rock candy. Lefties absolutely despise Rice, and consider her a cross between butt-ugly and a Bush toady.
It's early in the second Bush term. Rice is merely at the point where she's telling her Main Enemy that she will not be afraid, nor will she be intimidated. The gay fashion folk and the power women mentioned above are merely information conduits to the larger news media and the general public. They will generate buzz, heat, and publicity around Condi, and take it away from Hillary. This is part of the process of "dislocation" that I spoke of. Condi is not trying to attract the votes of the Fab Five. She is trying to use them as conduits to the larger public to get her name, her style, and her "look" out there.
When you rely on a fawning press and courtiers, what do you do when the lights go out? That's Hillary's problem. Condi can use her looks as a weapon. Hillary can't.
That's going to make a huge difference among men. However, the way she carries herself will make the difference among women.
Be Seeing You,
Chris