Hillary is claiming that she apposed the Iraq war before Obama Of coures that is not exactly true:
In Eugene, Ore., Saturday. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., attempted to change the measure by which anyone might assess who criticized the Iraq war first, her or Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., by saying those keeping records should start in January 2005, when Obama joined the Senate. (A measure that conveniently avoids her October 2002 vote to authorize use of force against Iraq at a time that Obama was speaking out against the war.) She claimed that using that measure, she criticized the war in Iraq before Obama did.
But Clinton’s claim was false.
Clinton on Saturday told Oregonians, “when Sen. Obama came to the Senate he and I have voted exactly the same except for one vote. And that happens to be the facts. We both voted against early deadlines. I actually starting criticizing the war in Iraq before he did.”
It’s an odd way to measure opposition to the war — comparing who gave the first criticism of the war in Iraq starting in January 2005, ignoring Obama’s opposition to the war throughout 2003 and 2004. (And Clinton’s vote for it.)
But even if one were to employ this “Start Counting in January 2005” measurement, Clinton did not criticize the war in Iraq first.
Scrambling to support their boss’s claim, Clinton campaign officials pointed to a paper statement Clinton issued on Jan. 26, 2005, explaining her vote to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State.
“The Administration and Defense Department’s Iraq policy has been, by any reasonable measure, riddled with errors, misstatements and misjudgments,” the January 2005 Clinton statement said. “From the beginning of the Iraqi war, we were inadequately prepared for the aftermath of the invasion with too few troops and an inadequate plan to stabilize Iraq.”
I think she is trying to say that if Obama had been in the Senate in 2002 he would have also voted for the war, I guess she is trying to argue that being in the Senate makes everyone stupid. For some reason I doubt this argument is going to get much traction.
Also, she  seems mostly to be complaining as to how the war was waged, but she does not seem to have a problem with the war in general. This seems to be the neo-con fallback position, the war in Iraq was a great idea, it was just waged badly.
Also, while she was supposedly critisizing the war she visitied Iraq and seemed to have a positive impression of what was happening there:
Upon returning she argued that setting a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops would aid the enemy.
“I don’t think it’s useful to set a deadline because I think it sends a signal to the terrorists and the insurgents that they just have to wait us out,†she said.
Describing her trip to Iraq, she said, “It’s regrettable that the security needs have increased so much. On the other hand, I think you can look at the country as a whole and see that there are many parts of Iraq that are functioning quite well.”
She also interpreted a series of suicide bomb attacks as an indication that the insurgency was failing.
All of this seems like someone trying to have two positions on the war, one in case of a loss, and one in case of a victory. She does not seem to understand that invading Iraq was wrong regardless of the outcome, much like John McCain she was and is wrong about Iraq and would probably be happy to get the country into another quagmire with a country like Iran. Niether Clinton or McCain has the judgement to be president.