Is Clinton peaking too early?

[gorkay]

She's peaking so early because the process has been accelerated so artificially this time. And yes, it's quite possible that she could crash.

[gorkay]

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?

Depends on who you talk to. Most Republicans would probably call her a populist, in the most negative sense of the word (they'd actually use some more pejorative term that meant the same thing, in all likelihood). A lot of Democrats would say she isn't populist enough. As for being an opportunist, both she and her husband have heard that charge over and over again, but in reality neither of them is any more opportunistic than most politicians are. It will certainly be a tough sell for the Republicans to claim that she is an opportunist if their nominee is Giuliani or Romney, both of whom have changed their positions on a number of issues to appeal to the right wing of the party.

[gorkay]

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.

[gorkay]

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

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

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

Not simple, and maybe not so likely, but possible.

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?

It wouldn't necessarily mean the end for her, but it would make things much more difficult. I speak from past experience. In the primaries and caucuses you are dealing not only with the actual results of the voting but also with how they differ from expectations. Here are some examples: In the 1976 Republican primary in New Hampshire, Reagan lost to Ford by only an eyelash, but since it had been widely anticipated that Reagan would win outright, the press and Reagan's opponents played it up as a disappointing result for him. In 1984, going into the primary season it looked like Mondale had the Democratic nomination sewn up, and he did win the Iowa caucuses handily. But because Gary Hart ran an unexpectedly strong second in Iowa, a lot of the anti-Mondale Democrats rallied behind him, and he wound up winning the New Hampshire primary and coming close to winning the nomination. If Hillary doesn't win Iowa, or wins it by a small margin, the press and her opponents will undoubtedly play it up as a disappointing result for her, and the same sort of thing could happen to her that happened to Reagan and Mondale.

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?

For the reasons explained above, it's possible, and it could conceivably be any of the Democratic candidates who benefits, except for Gravel and Kucinich. And yes, there are many in the party who either dislike her or fear she won't be a strong candidate.

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

Yes. Some would claim that she's less likely to win the Presidency than some of the other Democratic candidates. Right now it looks like just about any Democrat would win the election, but it's way too early to say whether or not that will hold up over the next year.

[gorkay]

Very well hidden.