On The Trail, Obama Airbrushes Out Clinton's Name

There's something missing from the Barack Obama campaign this weekend: virtually all mention of his primary opponent, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. In speeches and in brief press conferences, Senator Obama has been pounding away on the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, often using the identical rhetoric that was served up against Mrs. Clinton just days ago.

All day Friday and again on Saturday, Mr. Obama has been unrelenting in his attacks on Mr. McCain's so-called Gas Tax Holiday plan, which Mr. Obama ridicules as saving motorists "a quarter and a nickel a day" through the summer. It's the same attack he launched against Mrs. Clinton during the run up to the May 6 primaries in North Carolina and Indiana, only lately with Mrs. Clinton virtually airbrushed from his text. Over the past two days, Mr. Obama has uttered the word "Clinton" sparingly, and only in response to questions from the audience--usually on health care--at some of his mass rallies. His campaign confirms that mention of Mrs. Clinton has disappeared from all prepared remarks.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[stepintothelight]

I WILL NOT BE IGNORED!!!

Everyone hide your bunnies!!!

[Jason357]

Good for Obama. that's what I'd do. If she doesn't understand when she's destroying the process, or doesn't care, just keep trying to move forward. I hope Obama's campaign doesn't give Clinton a dime. Why can't Clinton raise money if she's so bloody popular? If Clinton is such a strong candidate, how come she's losing against a rookie Senator like Obama? How come she never voiced one objection to the process when she thought SHE was the one dominating?

It's because much of her "support" is from Limbaugh wackos who know she's the weaker candidate. What else explains her winning primaries that republicans get to vote in, but not being able to raise money? I blame 90% of this mess on the democratic primary process. It should be criminal to vote for a candidate in a primary just because they are weakest against the candidate you really want to win. It's crazy to allow that.

It should be set up that a vote in a primary extends to the general election if that candidate wins the primary. It should also be set up that "superdelegates" are illegal. What the hell kind of system is it that pits connected politicians against the public? I hope this debacle encourages democrats to rethink their process, and their party leaders. Another prohibition should be when the primaries are held. State general assemblies of one party shouldn't be able to adversely affect when the other party's primary is held, like this year in Florida.

[Marlyn]

"It should be criminal to vote for a candidate in a primary just because they are weakest against the candidate" ???
But there is no way to prevent such a thing. You can't read a voter's mind.

However, we truly do need election reform. Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) has said the dispute over delegates in Florida and Michigan has exposed a flawed nominating system, and he is proposing sweeping election reform.

He would divide the nation into 6 rotating interregional primaries that will give large and small states a fair say in the nomination process. Primaries would be conducted on rotating dates ranging from March to June, taking the place of the current early-voting states, Iowa and New Hampshire. The dates initially would be set by a lottery system for the 2012 election and would rotate positions in successive elections.

All citizens should be allowed to vote absentee, if they so choose. Early voting should be available in every state, and the voting machines that do not produce a paper trail should be eliminated.

Senator Nelson also proposes awarding the presidency based on the popular vote instead of the Electoral College.

And he promotes looking into voting on the internet (which I think is a TERRIBLE IDEA).

[MsLiz]

Jason, perhaps I can offer some insight here. The Democratic Party is nominating a candidate. This isn't a general election play off. The parties have built themselves up for over a hundred years, and have to elect candidates for all offices, not just elect a president. Twice in my adult life, the Democratic Party nominated weak candidates due to skillful politicking in the primaries and caucuses: McGovern and Carter. McGovern's candidacy was a disaster (I voted for him) and Carter, (I voted for him, and bless him for his good heart), was a one term governor and was elected as an antidote to Watergate and a rebuke to Ford for the Nixon pardon. The "connected politicians" you speak of were dismayed to have McGovern and Carter at the head of their tickets.

Our system is infinitely more complicated than we often realize. It is not pure democracy, nor should it be in my opinion. After all, the masses voted for George Bush in 2004.

[Marlyn]

"the masses voted for George Bush in 2004." ???

But how can we be sure of that, when people voted on those electronic voting machines for which there is no way to verify the tally?

[ikesine1]

I agree with that. I'm from Iowa and as you know we are the first in the nation caucus. If you think that caucus type primaries are fair you must be an Obama supporter because that is one of his main ways of winning primaries. The fact is caucuses are the least democratic ways to select a candidate. The proof is right before your eyes, if you open them to look. Caucuses usually run from 7:00 p.m. until they end, usually a couple of hours. How many people do you think couldn't partisipate because of that. Any second shift worker, most of the senior citizens who are not able to get around easily, myself, who had to work overtime that day, those with small children and I don't know how many others. There are no absentee ballots so how many are not heard from? The best example of this is the Texas two step where you get to vote twice, once in the primary and once in the caucus. Case in point, Hillary wins primary loses caucus. Just to let you know, I didn't support either of these as my first choice, my arguement here is against the caucus system.

[ObserverinVancouver]

She never objected to the process because neither she nor anyone else in her campaign understood it.

[amst]

IF it were Obama who "lost" the primary, I know I'd be devastated. Would I however vote for McCain??? Hell no. What's wrong with the bitter Hillary clan. Sure, I understand you're disappointed, but do you really really WANT McCain. No number of threats to vote for McCain will change things except how our nation is ran. Do you really want McSane? All I'm saying is, when tears subside, when reality settles in, please think.

If for some reason this primary took a turn and Clinton ended up winning (although I can't imagine how). I would vote for her. Sure, I would plug my nose (and I was a former supporter, or should I say loved both candidates), but I WOULD vote for her.

And for my fellow Obama supporters, do NOT buy into this Obama doesn't stand a chance in hell to win bull. I am in CA where Clinton won the primary. However, new polls show that if the primary were held today, Obama would win by about 6/7 points. I do think once everyone gets to know him better the will trust him and like him.

Obama for President!!!!!

[julieeiluj]

Really? How unfortunate for poor Obama. He does realize that he does not stand an ice cubes chance in hell of winning in November with Clinton voters, and the major states she and only she was able to win in doesn't he? Obama cannot and will not win without her, as a matter of fact, he has already lost.

[eurydice]

There are no major states that "she and only she was able to win in".

If the states are blue states, they will go Obama anyway.

If the states are red states, most of them will go to Obama as well.

[ObserverinVancouver]

Sen. Clinton's supporters should keep saying Roe v. Wade over and over. That is what is at stake in this election. Would you really vote for someone who uses Justices Roberts and Alioto as his role models for appointments to the Supreme Court? It is painful to vote for someone you really do not like for the sake of the party, but you just have to suck it up and do it. I know this from personal experience because I do not like my Member of Parliament but I keep on voting for her even though it hurts.

[Tropiholic]

Ignoring an attention seeker is always the best way to go. It's the thing that makes them crazy!

[julieeiluj]

Yes, but with her vast following, it is the formula for McCain as the next president. Not a time to let egos put you back in a senator seat rather than the oval office.

[Marlyn]

"it is the formula for McCain as the next president." ???

That's a twist. How in the world could Obama's ignoring Hillary and attacking McCane help McCane?

[marijam]

Its a good move. Its actually all over now, we're just cleaning up all of the loose ends at this point. Eventually, the chicken that is running around with its head cut off, not realizing that it is dead, will die. Sometimes, it takes a little while and is diconcerting. The chicken is dead, however. So, as Obama says, "Don't worry".

[julieeiluj]

It is the best thing he can do if, and only if, he is going to offer her a v.p. spot, for without it he has already lost the presidency.

[bitter84]

julie i understand your kind of upset that hilary isn't the nominee but to suggest he HAS to pick her is arrogant

about as arrogant as she has been through this whole race

she isn't owed anything maybe if she worked for it as much as talks about it maybe she would be the nominee

[Marlyn]

"offer her a v.p. spot" ???

Obama couldn't do that without totally losing his own credibility.

[ejay579]

Love where Obama said he can't help it if the American people want to know about McShame's involvment with the Keating 5.

[jean22]

Once again HRC is authorizing and refusing to immediately withdraw from a "war that never should have been waged"...her war against Obama. The real target should be McCain, especially at this point in the campaign. Glad Obama has the good judgment to go after the real enemy . HRC's judgment is frightening as is her inability to learn from mistakes.

[lobo1939]

And she and Bill are still giving polarizing speeches in WV. Voter supression speeches which Obama will have to spend prescious time and money eventually undoing. They are poisening the democratic well and the f****** democratic SDs are just sitting around saying, "Oh my."

[missjabez]

Perhaps Obama's wish is that if he ignores Clinton she'll go away. Not a chance on that front.

[dbdzen]

Obama won. It hurts for the losing side. He can continue against her or target pro-lifer with no exceptions McCain.

[julieeiluj]

Obama has won nothing but the support of short sighted supporters who refuse to see the writing on the wall for november. A candidate that is deceitful, a politician that lies more convincingly than most, a black candidate that cannot carry most of the white vote over 30 years of age, a man who has offended much of the female vote in this country, a candidate that was unable to win any key state, a man who, if he wins the nomination and refuses to embrace and even offer clinton a v.p. slot, has committed political suicide and will be going back to his senate seat rather than the oval office.

Not a time for egos, hate or ill feelings. This country and our world is in deep trouble, For the good of every man woman and child on this planet we are painfully destroying to a point of our own extinction, DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO COME TOGETHER AND WIN IN NOVEMBER. Kiss and make up or retire to the senate.

[Marlyn]

"Kiss and make up" ???

I think NOT! Hillary has burned her bridges, and WE don't want her.

You call Obama deceitful, a liar, who has offended female voters ???
NO .. we won't align ourselves with the likes of you, julieeiluj.

[Charmed]

Since the main argument (at this point) is that Obama can't win the "hard working White vote" then all he needs is a "white" person on his ticket.

[whizkid]

At some point Obama and his rabid followers need to realize he now lacks the required delegates and will till the convention. If then.

[in4success]

he'll have them by june sixth --- obviously, in your case "whiz" means "pee."

[Tropiholic]

whizzy if you don't succeed in convincing anyone with your first 5000 posts, keep trying! you could always go back to the fake "muslim" accusation, perhaps you'll have better luck with that tired old lie.

[focher]

Can we just make a single place where all the Clinton supporters who want to spew some diatribe against Obama can go to post? At some point, they are just going to have to get over that their candidate did not win the nomination. And for those who still refuse to believe it, please include in any reply exactly what criteria must be met for you to accept that reality.

[julieeiluj]

Your post is a perfect example of the type of thinking that defeats democrats so frequently in elections. The inability to see the writing clearly on the wall. I don't like any of these candidates, but McCain is simply not an option. To turn the democrat side of the november election into obamas followers and put clinton supporters over there somewhere is the perfect recipe for defeat. Without her voters, without her key states, indeed, without her, he cannot and will not win in November.

[Marlyn]

julieeiluj says "I don't like any of these candidates".

Surely you jest! I thought you liked Hillary. So you don't even like Hillary but you come here and suggest we should all vote for her?

From the beginning the GOP wanted to run against Hillary (because she was a clear loser, because of her "baggage"). Now that it is clear that Hillary will NOT be the Democratic nominee, the GOP is pushing for their "dream ticket" which is to have Hillary's name on the ballot (even if only for VP) because that would UNITE the GOP who would come out to vote against Hillary.

[Charmed]

Obama is doing a 50 state registration drive, maybe he will pick up enough new voters to counter the defectors to McCain from the hillary camp.

[ikesine1]

That would be a good idea because it seems we have found one for Obama right here at Huffpo. I really can't believe how hateful you Obamanuts are. Guess which candidate is really the most divisive.

[whizkid]

He keeps his own name sorta distant too.
Hope somebody named Change is on the ballot cause thats what all the signs say.
Or Ambercrombie & Fitch.
Look people, this an unproven lightweight with David Axelrod tactics about to steal our party.

[focher]

Funny, last I checked I have been a Democrat for quite a few years. Just whose party is it that we stole when we voted for our preferred candidate?

[whizkid]

focher
Ask Democrats in Florida, Michigan, Texas, Colorado, Washington, etc.

[ejay579]

Obama may be an "unproven lightweight with David Axelrod tactics" but at least we know he is our "unproven lightweight with David Axelrod tactics".

[bitter84]

i think we can change that to proven now that he won the nom

he took out the biggest name in the democratic party

im sure he can take out a flip flopping old criminal

keating

[XME]

Good for him. Seems Clinton is the only one who's unwilling to face reality and MOVE ON.

[julieeiluj]

well if he forces her to move on, so too will her voters move on.

[bitter84]

please with the crying you sound so bitter she lost fair and square move on

please and take clinton with you

[Charmed]

He's not forcing her to do anything. It's the media saying she should get out. Obama has never even hinted that she should get out. She's on the ballot and free to spend the supporters money anyway she see's fit.

[shubes61]

according to Andrea Mitchell's report just now on the "Today Show", it's her top supporters who are telling her it's over, and that she should quit this week after she wins West Virginia.

[Sonny James]

Here is the Funniest site.

You will laugh your a@@ off....

http://www.surrenderhillary.com/gallery/

[VOTER]

Thanks!

LOL