with respect to all sides (i'm unaffiliated despite the avatar), it's not as simple as who voted for or against the war in iraq:
in 2002, congress (including at that time senator clinton) voted in favor of going to war with iraq based on information which was provided by - and falsified by - the current administration. many congressional members (democrat and republican) have expressed since then regret over giving the president the authority to go to war in iraq.
from the washington post:
"...in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction ... the intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda."
from ABC news:
"ABC News decided to survey the views of the senators who served in 2002, most of whom remain in the Senate. The survey indicates that those senators say that if they knew then what they know now, President Bush would never have been given the authority to use force in Iraq."
as for senator clinton's continued voting in favor of releasing funds for the war in iraq, it's not a simple case of funding = support for the war. congress must, for the time being, continue to fund the 'war' because it was poorly planned and executed by the current administration - creating the current (excuse the cliché) political and military quagmire. simply pulling the plug financially is not a feasible alternative for congress. 1) voting to provide money to feed, clothe and properly defend the americans that are currently serving in iraq, until a proper solution can be found and implemented, is congress' responsibility, and satisfying this responsibility doesn't necessarily mean that senator clinton is in favor of the war itself or the mechanisms through which this quagmire came to be.
2) in addition to fighting a military campaign, american troops are also pulling the double-duty of preventing the already ensuing humanitarian disaster (according to the international red cross) from degrading any further - a function not unlike that which the national guard performs during times of domestic natural disasters - or spilling into neighboring countries more than it already has (turkey/syria). these two functions are immensely expensive, and are independent tertiary situations which have been caused our initial invasion of iraq.
based on these considerations, i must place the blame for our economic troubles on the current administration's decision to present manipulated information in order to justify military action in iraq in the first place. blame might even be seen to rest on the political system in general, for creating an environment where elected officials (democrat and republican) are more interested in party interests than the interests of the majority of their constituency.