[wmbwinn]

In a conference call with reporters, Obama sought to squelch the accusations — raised by the campaign of his chief rival for the nomination, Hillary Rodham Clinton — saying his Senate votes to continue funding the conflict don't contradict his long-standing opposition to it.

"Once we were in, we were going to have some responsibility to try to make it work as best we can. More importantly, you make sure the troops are supported," the Illinois senator said. "I don't think there's any contradiction there whatsoever. We should not get in, once we were in we had to make the best of a bad situation."

Earlier in the day on the Senate floor, Obama reminded colleagues of a speech he gave in 2002 warning of grave consequences if the U.S. invaded Iraq.

It was the latest flare-up in an escalating spat with Clinton, who is under fire from many Democratic activists for her 2002 vote authorizing military action in Iraq and whose lead in political polls is being eroded by Obama.

Clinton's lead strategist, Mark Penn, told an audience this week that Obama's votes on the war since he arrived in the Senate in 2005 had been identical to Clinton's.

With both candidates' credibility on the line, Obama said he wanted to make his record clear.

Obama has cast his early and forceful opposition to the war as a key test of presidential leadership and judgment. The Clinton team recently began openly challenging his claim of political purity and authenticity on the volatile issue.

Beneath the squabble lay an acute recognition of the depth of voter anger over Iraq, especially among Democratic primary voters.

Polling shows most Americans now decisively oppose the war, but the figure is much higher among Democrats. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll taken last month found that 61 percent of the public now believe the war was a mistake; among Democrats, it was 91 percent.

"Iraq is the issue that is first among equals right now, and these candidates are under incredible pressure from party activists to talk about it in a detailed way," Democratic strategist Erik Smith said. "Obama is trying to be the insurgent candidate on the war, while the Clinton campaign is trying to level the playing field and change the frame of the debate."

On the presidential campaign trail, without naming names, Obama jabs at rivals who voted in favor of the invasion.

"I am proud of the fact that I opposed this war from the start," Obama said to huge cheers at a rally Saturday in Oakland, Calif., "that I stood up in 2002 and said this is a bad idea. This is going to cost of billions of dollars and thousands of lives."

Clinton, meanwhile, has refused to repudiate her vote but has harshly criticized the conduct of the war, saying "if we knew then what we know now" she never would have voted as she did.

Clinton advisers insist that voters care more about ending the Iraq conflict than revisiting how it started. In recent months, Clinton has sponsored legislation capping troop levels and has spoken in detail of how she would resolve the conflict as president.

Still, the Clinton camp — keenly aware of Obama's increasing popularity among Democrats — has become more aggressive in challenging his careful positioning on the war. The first signs of a new strategy trickled out late last week, when former President Clinton was quoted in a New York tabloid gossip column complaining that not enough attention had been paid to Obama's Senate votes on Iraq.

At a Harvard University forum Monday, Penn answered a question by bringing up Obama's Senate record. He said Obama, like Clinton, has voted for spending bills to continue funding the war. And like Clinton, he opposed an amendment sponsored by Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry last year that would have set a July 1, 2007, deadline for withdrawing troops.

"When they got to the Senate, Senator Obama's votes were exactly the same," Penn said.

-------------------------------------------------------------

I stole the above from an article quoted on the presidential debate thread.

This basically re-states exactly what I said before.
1)These Democrats voted for the war including Obama
2)These Democrats don't intend to withdraw funding including Obama
3)These Democrats may talk about withdrawing troops but they are backpedalling and admitting that they can't just leave Iraq.
4)These Democrats are finally sitting down and actually talking about strategy and plans to succeed in Iraq and at least leave a workable solution there for our security and that of Europe and the Middle East.
5)Politics is all impression and lies (partial truths).

Obama is among the leading candidates to say things like the "war is wrong" and "we should withdraw" and "we have to reign in this president". But, Obama is not going to withdraw the troops until we are successful (and all of you that think that will happen by 2008 need to take the joint away from your mouth). Obama is not going to withdraw funding. And, no one knows what Obama and Hillary have planned for a strategy that is substantially different than what Bush and the military planners are already working on.

The Democrats are just capitalizing on American emotion to win elections. The cost is that our enemies read the news also and they are as dumb as us to believe that US politicians actually intend to withdraw troops or reduce spending or take any other measure that might cause an outcome that is short of at least workable and at best a surprising success.

Nothing accomplished except deluding Americans, embrazening our enemies, demoralizing our troops, confusing our Iraqi allies, emboldening Iran, angering Russia, straining our alliance with Britain, scaring our Israeli allies, losing influence in Turkey, irritating Saudi Arabia (sunni), increasing the military planning of Lebanese and Syrian and Iranian generals, and increasing the liklihood of our failure.

All to win an election...