Someone else addressed this in another discussion, I'll post it and my response:

Reader:
"I voted for Obama in the primary and will vote for him if he wins the nomination, but this:

   ... consistency on Iraq.

is not quite true. Yes, he's been pretty consistent in his speeches, but given the chance to actually vote against the war, he's voted every time to continue it. Actions, not words."

Me:     "good point, Obama is in the end a politician.  That means that, given the democrats' unwillingness to counter the republican "he voted to not support the troops", with "the purpose of cutting off funding is to force the president to withdraw," he saw he would be open to this charge and twisting in the wind.  A political calculation.  Nevertheless, his consistent statements on Iraq withdrawal seem calculated to prepare Americans for him to do just that, whereas Clinton's positions seem calculated to prove over and over that a woman can be commander in chief. The Clintons are centrists, they ride the wind.  Obama, for all his faults, shows signs of leadership, which means not only riding the wind but changing it.  The Super Bowl gambit proved that."
-----

As for the comment that Clinton would win more votes on Iraq than Obama against McCain, that ignores her negatives among Republicans and red-state independents, who'll vote for anyone before they'll vote for Hillary Clinton.