While it's true that Hillary and much of the rest of the country, including many long term liberal democrats, were dead wrong about the war and Obama was correct, it doesn't entitle him to a pass or necessarily make him a better candidate than someone who came to the same conclusion later. It's relatively easy to be against anything and much more difficult to defend what you're actually "for". Obama had much less to risk politically by voting against the war than many other more popular congressmen and especially those from New York. Being for something, anything a little more substancial than change,( is it spare, clothing, or what exactly??) would be more reassuring. If you are suggesting that your support or lack thereof hinges solely on this issue and its timing I say it is short sighted and dangerous. Note that nearly everyone today seems to be against the Iraq war except McCain. I was honestly torn about the issue at the time when we invaded and prayed that the intelligence that the White House claimed to be true would be verified and confirmed. I had serious doubts. I was wrong for not listening to my own misgivings and trusting the bastards who sold our nation down the river. I don't believe for an instant that millions of Americans who had similar feelings but marginally trusted what the press and nearly every senator and congressman claimed were stupid, lying or part of a cover up. Many well intentioned Americans including those serving in the military as well as many conservative republicans were genuinely deceived. Do you think that Christopher Hitchens was part of the Bush/Chaney administrations plot to deceive America and the world? Being right about Iraq is a positive but not enough for the cigar. Many long term persistent enemies of the US were against the invasion of Iraq as well. Does that make them better friends of America or to be trusted by us more than the Australians, Japanese, English, Spanish, Polish who believed and marginally "supported" the invasion?