As Obama says, this isn't just about refighting old battles. It's about who has the best judgment for future decisions. Obama has talked about how some of his unique experience informs his judgment. So far, though she touts her experience in the abstract, Clinton refuses to discuss in detail how her experience informs her judgment.

We need evidence-based judgment:

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
--Obama, 2002

Not fear-based judgment:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."
--HRC, 2002

We now know that Obama has said if he had been in the Senate he doesn't know how he would have voted. It is getting very old with his touting I was against the war. Since that time he has voted to keep funding the occupation in Iraq. Obama has missed important votes in congress. I don't think he is a leader at all, and if he really wanted to end the Iraq occupation, he would be standing up in congress every day and urging his fellow senators to not fund the occupation. Actions talk, bullshit walks.

rssrai, your argument is tired and merely serves to allow the Dems who failed us so badly in October 2002 to be rewarded for their great judgment. Obama's position matched that of the majority of Congressional Democrats in 2002 but went against popular opinion. The MINORITY voted for this miserable war.

Now we are left with the mopping up after this extraordinarily bad decision. Instead of supporting the Dems who showed the best judgment at the time, you apparently want to ignore this as an issue and then REWARD the Dems who were in the minority at the time for their support of this disastrous Bush agenda.

And I understand that Reid scheduled that last Iran vote after telling Obama that it wouldn't be scheduled until he was back in town. And Reid voted for this war and is definitely part of the Dem establishment. Are you so dense that you don't see that Obama was set up for this vote? And now you are dense enough to use it to continue to excuse the poor judgment that CLINTON continues to display.

I'm not fooled by your diversionary tactics and the skirting around the truth that has been a hallmark of Hillary's public career. Read Bernstein's book to discover how Hillary has a slippery relationship with the truth.

Now, go play in your sandbox with the other toddlers.

I think the Rasmussen daily tracking poll is the best of inherently bad choices to make regarding polls. The changes are subtle, their methodology is very refined, and the gap between Hillary and Obama has been in the range of 12-25 percent along with pretty consistent numbers for Edwards.

Today, the gap is 15 points---it could be 20 by Monday----or ten. It is taken almost every day.

The thirty point poll was not focused on likely democratic voters---it was scattershot---seemed to pump up Bush's support beyond what it is----and of course---it was the one poll widely parroted by the overwhelmingly centrist media who are going to be very pissed if they have to cover anything other than a Clinton Giuliani race.

Here is the correct link
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr071003-2topline.pdf&id=3668

Good ad, hits the right points and tone, but nothing new here. Most people are aware of this fateful distinction between early Hillary and Obama position in search of an actual difference in performance once Obama's been called to account on the record.

Again, It's a legitimate point and an effective ad, but I don't think it calls leadership abilities and judgement into question with yet undecided voters as some would hope.

This is Bush's war in everyone's mind, trying to tie it to Hillary's vote is only marginally working here. And all Democrats, including Barack, are tarred equally ineffective at ending it at this point. Iraq's the biggest issue but not motivating "one-issue" voters who mostly reside in Republican wings anyway.

colonpowwow, with all due respect, this war would not have happened if a minority of our Congressional Dems had not kicked the can to the Prez by voting for the Iraq war resolution.

The question is why the majority of our Dems in Congress got it right and a minority got it wrong. And, oh gee, it doesn't matter that the minority got it wrong--even if it's war! Let's reward one of them with our nomination for the Presidency.

Don't get me wrong--the GOP needs to go into the round can for a few decades because of this mess. But our Dems are just supposed to keep strutting around as if they exercised good judgment?

And I'm sick of the argument you establishment supporters make about "no one's voting differently". The Dems simply did not have the majority--and it was razor thin in the Sentate--until after November 2006 and these folks weren't sworn in until January 2008. And I trust Pelosi on how to vote on this one--she understands Bush far better than Hillary ever did. We have tried to change Bush with the Iraq Study Group and a slow erosion of public opinion.

Now patience is at an end and the Dem rubber will meet the road. If you think that's pandering by Obama, what the he!! do you call it when Hillary supports it, cheerleads, slowly begins to call it incompetently waged, never calls it wrong, says all sorts of nonsense like "it wasn't a war vote, it was a diplomacy vote" like she did on Iran recently and now says "trust me and we'll be gone".

Convince me to trust this person with the presidency instead of trashing Obama who has at least been honest with his reasons for opposing and then supporting funding and now saying he will not vote to fund the war without a timetable for withdrawal. He certainly wasn't dragged kicking and screaming to that conclusion.

Explain Hillary to me. Convince me to trust her flopping all over the map on this issue. Convince me that this sort of flopping is something that Dems somehow manage to forgive over and over and over as we lose elections over and over and over.