It's right there in the name.

There is a reason her marks on honesty are so low. But please tell your candidate to keep pushing ridiculous assertions.

She's right that she criticized the war before Obama? What's your proof?

Then what the hell is the "authorization to go to war with Iraq" vote called? Hillary has said numerous times that she voted for the war and that if you don't like it, find another candidate. I have.

Go Obama!

"If the Senate hadn't given the president the go-ahead, I wouldn't be here trying to explain why I VOTED FOR THE WAR," said Clinton.'

http://politics.propeller.com/story/2007 01/28/clinton-gets-mixed-reviews-in-iow a

She admits that she voted for the war so lets end the talking point that she didn't.

but only one of them can have opposed the war first, and unless you've totally sublimated your will to Hillary you know who that candidate is.

I'm not sure how they can both lie about who started criticizing the war first...

She admits it when she makes a mistake, unlike Obama..

She's admitted several mistakes.

Well in 2003 she said this:

"I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein."

http://www.cfr.org/publication/6600/rema rks_by_senator_hillary_rodham_clinton_tr anscript.html

"- this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."

I should point out that other than the administration, monitors said they thought he was disarmed.

Even if you accept a vote authorizing the war as criticizing the war (a politician wanting to have it both ways if I've ever heard it), she's still lying.

She said those words on the Senate floor 10/10/02. Here is Obama 10/02/02.

I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

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.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

While Hillary Clinton was going along with Bush (likely for reasons of ambition since while a majority of Democratic Senators voted against the war, the majority of those up for re-election or with Presidential ambitions voted for it)  and voting for the war, Barack Obama was taking the politically unpopular but completely correct positions about the war.  He foresaw the quagmire, he knew Iraq was not a threat and he understood it was being pushed by an ideological cabal for their own ends.

That's a non-sensical parsing.