Everytime Sen. Clinton pulls this b.s. "experience" argument versus Sen. Obama, stuff like this comes back to bite her. In this instance Sen. Clinton puts her "experience" and John McCain's "experience" in a superior class to Sen. Obama who she derisively says only "has a speech he gave in 2002."
Of course, Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain used this awesome experience and didn't learn a damn thing by voting for the war in Iraq, while Sen. Obama stood against the war in his much-derided speech.
This argument makes no logical sense for her. She's on much firmer ground when she discusses the yeoman's work she's done on issues like health care. But when it comes to national security, she ends up right back in the position John Kerry was in in 2004.
If you've got one party for a war and another against it, the one who is against the war should probably have as its leader someone who had the same inclination of the base of the party towards that war, or at least the good sense to eventually - within a decent amount of time - admit they were totally freaking wrong.