Greg Sargent of TPM Election Central posts a rundown of the differences in Iraq war voting patterns of Sens. Clinton and Obama. Not surprisingly, he finds only one divergent vote: the confirmation of General Casey (Clinton NAY, Obama YEA).

This is helpful, but misses a lot. As Sargent himself points out:

But let us be clear: We are not posting this to suggest that their earlier difference at the start of the war — their most important difference — should in any way be overshadowed by these similarities.

Very true, though I think their are important differences between the two that go beyond Obama’s pre-senatorial stance.

It’s not surprising two prominent Democrats, both from safely Democratic states, would have an incredibly similar voting pattern on the biggest issue of our political generation. That’s not to say the two don’t disagree greatly on the issues, however. As Obama points out on page 14 of The Audacity of Hope:

Except for the few minutes it takes to vote, my colleagues and I don’t spend much time on the Senate floor. Most of the decisions–about what bills to call and when to call them, about how amendments will be handled and how uncooperative senators will be made to cooperate–have been worked out well in advance by the majority leader, the relevant committee chairman, their staffs, and…their Democratic counterparts.

Senate voting is only the tip of the mountainous iceberg of official Senate business. Obama and Clinton certainly have plenty of space to disagree and politically scuffle as part of some Democratic “off-the-senate-floor” wheeling and dealing.

Look at Chuck Hagel’s voting record, for example, and you’ll see a solid Republican Iraq war proponent, with only a handful of key (somewhat recent) divergent votes. Listen to Chuck Hagel on the Sunday talk shows, and watch him work behind the scenes within his own party’s senatorial machinations, and a very different Senator comes forward.

The differences are a lot larger and less subtle than the voting patterns may indicate.