If you had asked me how many times Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had differed on matters relating to Iraq, I would have guessed only a few times.

The answer, according to Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld, is only once out of 69 votes in the Senate.

Of the total of 69 votes we compiled — some significant, some not — it turns out that the two differed on only one. You’ll see that one in bold on our chart. 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. For many, that difference will remain paramount — for good reason. We just wanted to add factual grist to what is but one component of the debate.
As you can see, Clinton and Obama have voted the opposite way on only one vote on our list: The confirmation of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff for the Army, held just this past February. Hillary voted against confirmation, while Obama voted to confirm.

Which leads to something I’ve been thinking… a significant chunk of the lefty netroots clearly aren’t happy with Hillary — she’s establishment, she’s the Big Brother of 1984, she’s going to triangulate and sell out on all of their priorities, etc.. But they’re also not happy with Obama. He’s too conciliatory, too nice, not enough of that in-your-face-I-hate-your-guts Howard Dean authenticity.

And some lefty bloggers are noting that when Hillary says, “If George Bush doesn’t get us out of Iraq by the election, I will”, she means, “I’ll ‘get us out’ in the sense of reducing our troop commitment to only 75,000 or so.”

As time goes by, will we see the netroots congregating around Edwards as the only acceptable choice for them? And what happens if we see a repeat of 2004 – a candidate beloved by the netroots who just can’t pull it together against more established rivals? (I would note that John Edwards is a much, much more polished candidate than Howard Dean was.)