Is Clinton peaking too early?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

She's peaking too early if she does not know she is. If she's aware she is, and if she's a good strategist (that i don't know), she'll drive a strategy to stay on top for the year to come, and first for the nomination.

As exemple, in France, even if i know that France and USA are different, Sarkozy never stopped to peak since 2002 until november 2006, date of the election of his opponent, Segolene Royal, then the two following mounths were for her, and then he continued to peak.

I think that he could peak as well on five years cause he was clear. He knew that time remained and he managed this time with some very good politic strategy.

Is Clinton peaking too early? Ask Sarkozy, he'll tell you. And if she's peaking too early, she should ask him the solution. I don't like his policy, his values, but i have to recognize that he forgot to be an idiot in politic strategy, far off.

Strategy is one the big key of policy, and maybe THE key.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Everybody knows who she is, and everybody already has an opinion of her.

Isn't she very opportunist and populist? That is what everybody knows?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

I know that republicans are not very tender with her. I heard that some treated her of "Bolchevik" one time, and also i heard Mc Cain criticize her wardrobe... so, very usefull criticisms!

If i said that on her, it's cause that's what i felt from different extracts of her debates and of her speeches that i saw in France. And you have to know that most of french medias (a lot of), never diserve the democrats, and even if they would prefer Barack Obama, they like Hillary Clinton a lot and more of all her husband for the one the MonicaGate gave him still more popualrity in my country.

I just felt her opportunism and populism concerning the different things she said, how she always try to make the higher bid than others in lot of subjects and how she speacks.

For sure all politicians are at least a little bit populist and opportunist, and GOP have not forgot to be it, far off. But when i feel that there is too much opportunism and populism to me, i find it difficult to support it. On the other hand, i also must say that in France Republicans are quite banished of the medias, so i haven't seen a lot of their speeches and of their debates, quite nothing at this time (for example, our big medias show us a little bit Giuliani, even less Mc Cain and Romney doesn't exist), so, maybe they are more populist and opportunist than her and i can't see it. When i'll have a better PC to watch videos on CBSnews.com or MSNBC.com or else, i'll could more know.

Something still seems strange to me. It's when you say that democrats ask Hillary to be more populist, i think it's a poor slope to do that and when you begin to activate the "populism and oppotunism accelerator", it's very difficult to stop it, and it could even drive on a longer time to the crash of policy in general. Politicians should always keep that in their mine, more of all actually when there are religious people who are not very lit and who just wait for that the policy crach herself to take it.

To come back to Hillary, maybe she's not really much populist and opportunist than most of others but, if it can be an explanation, i think that it's not a reason to jutify it. Maybe it's in the air of time, it was the same thing in France in 2007 presidency elections, main politic leaders could not help going in this way and persisting in it, it was not so much before.

Poor politicians, if they could know that they could be so much great and maybe as much popular if they made a cocktail of sincerity, realism, voluntarism and ambition, all of that driven in an ambitious way for ALL (not only money) domains of the evolution of the human being: Wow! I could love them...!

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Do someone seriously envisage that she can lose primaries???

Someone seriously envisage Obama for nomination??? Edwards???

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Do someone seriously envisage that she can lose primaries???

Someone seriously envisage Obama for nomination??? Edwards???

Yes, she could lose primaries, and she could lose the nomination. Remember, nobody has voted yet, and remember what happened to Howard Dean. The biggest obstacle she has to overcome early is the Iowa caucuses, where she is running far weaker than she is in most other states. If she doesn't win there, even though it wouldn't be a huge surprise, the media and her opponents will blow her "rejection" there up to such proportions that she could be in some trouble... especially if the anti-Hillary Democrats find someone to unite behind.

For sure i do not control the science of the american campaigns, but is that so simple???

I mean, just losing in Iowa, even far, could it be a so important problem for her or even could it mean the end for her??? Could a rejection be credible just for losing in a state??? If yes, why?

Then, is an union of the anti-Hillary possible? behind who? is there a big opposition in the democrat party between anti-Hillary and pro-Hillary?

And final question, that i consider as being important, can an other Democrat than Hillary Clinton seriously envisage to win the presidency election?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Thancks for your precisions gorkay, I appreciate it.

All of this seems to mean to me that the opinion and the medias are, or could be, verry versatile. It also seems to mean to me that in each parties there are, or there could be, long-teeth verry opportunists persons who prefer them to win than their party and also that there is not, or there could be not, a big leadership to contain all these long-teeth persons (I put the "could" cause let us see primaries...).

When I think about my country... (sorry to often speack about it but I find comparisons interesting). For 2007 presidency elections, the party of the opposition of Sarkozy's party made some sort of primaries. There were 3 candidates who made just 3 public debates on a small TV channel, the rest was some meetings or some press declarations (no politic advertising on TV, radio or press like in USA, it's forbidden in France). And after the defeat (Sarkozy won, for the ones who didn't know) everybody in the party to say: "we should have never done like that, we publicly attacked ourselves to win the nomination of the party, it's one of the large cause of our defeat", though they were real politic ennemies. I can understand when they say that cause "union makes strong" but it only works if someone is enough strong to make the union... It shows how french policy and US policy are far sometimes, but less and less, now we have... "Sarkozy the american!".