clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Is Hillary Clinton hurting Democrats? Bill Daley's take

Is Hillary Rodham Clinton—by not declaring—even hinting more—about a 2016 presidential run—hurting Democrats? That’s the premise of a story by Politico’s Maggie Haberman kicking off the Hillary buzz on Friday. Chicago’s Bill Daley, the former chief of staff for President Barack Obama, brushes aside the concern.

“I don’t buy it at all. It’s crazy,” Daley said.

The Politico headline: “Clinton’s delay Freezing the field or human shield”

Read Haberman’s story HERE.

Over at the Wall Street Journal, one of Clinton’s pals from Park Ridge, Betsy Ebeling, tells about how during a weekend summer visit at her home near the Michigan/Indiana dunes, not one of the eight women asked her about running for president.

Ebeling told the WSJ, “It would be like asking your daughter-in-law, ‘When are you going to finally have a baby?’ ” she said.

Read the WSJ story HERE.

And more Hillary Clinton buzz on Friday from a new Gallup Poll…

A top selling point for a Clinton White House bid is her potential to make history as the first female president.

But she drags into a run negatives and Gallup notes what they are….

From Gallup: “The most frequently mentioned negative views of a Clinton presidency offered by Republicans include that she would be continuing Democratic control of the White House, that she is a Democrat in general, that she got elected in the first place, that she is not qualified, and that she is dishonest. Independents are more likely than Democrats and Republicans to mention her specific views on healthcare, and that Bill Clinton would be back in the White House as negatives. Democrats who do offer a view on the negatives associated with a Clinton presidency talk most about not wanting a woman president, her qualifications, that the polarized and contentious nature of fights with Congress would continue, that Bill would be back in the White House, and her scandals and baggage.”