Hillary Clinton’s formidable campaign machine is cranking into a higher gear, grinding down opponents over Iraq and vacuuming up unprecedented amounts of money.

The frontrunner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination is working to turn one of her perceived weaknesses — her support for the Iraq war — to her advantage. She has confronted Barack Obama, her chief rival, over his claim to have opposed the Iraq war from the outset. When heckled about her stance, as she was at a fundraiser this week, she has succeeded in turning the tables on her critics.

Mrs Clinton has avoided attacking Mr Obama directly but her aides have distributed quotes suggesting uncertainty as to how he would have voted in 2002 had he been in the Senate with access to intelligence briefings. In one such statement, he said: “What would I have done? I don’t know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.”

Mrs Clinton has been assailed at every step of the campaign over her failure to apologise for backing the war. Her new strategy is designed to blur the differences between her and Mr Obama while emphasising her experience and temperament for the highest office in her refusal to be bounced into a new position by antiwar activists.

At a Washington fundraiser on Tuesday night her speech was interrupted by a protester posing as reporter who shouted: “What about Iraq? You don’t care if our soldiers die.” Mrs Clinton appeared prepared for the heckling, saying to rising applause from her audience: “I understand the frustration about this Administration’s handling of Iraq. This President owes this country a plan to end our involvement in Iraq. And if he does not extricate us from Iraq before he leaves office, I will, as president.”

The Obama campaign has struck back, posting on its web-site videos, speeches and time-lines describing his “consistent opposition” to the war. It is, however, wary of being drawn into a bare-knuckle fight with Mrs Clinton which, it fears, could dent his core message of offering hope for a new kind of politics.

David Axelrod, Mr Obama’s senior strategist, clashed with Mark Penn, his counterpart from the Clinton campaign, at a public debate this week, asking: “Are we going to spend ten months savaging each other or are we going to try to lift this country up?”

Mrs Clinton’s event on Tuesday raised no less than $2.7 million (£1.4 million) from guests who paid a minimum of $1,000 each for the privilege of eating buffet food.

Significantly, for the second time this week she wheeled out the campaign’s asset among Democrats — her husband, Bill, who she said she would make “ambassador of the world” if she won in November next year.

Some estimates suggest that by the end of the week, when the Clintons will have staged their third such dinner, they will have raised $10 million.

The former president has also been quoted this week suggesting that Mr Obama’s record on Iraq had received insufficient scrutiny. On Tuesday he hammered home the message that his wife was uniquely qualified to enter the White House in her own right.

“Long before she was in public office she was a public servant,” he said, as he reflected on their early courtship. “Tonight I feel more strongly than I did 35 years ago, when I told her that out of all the people in our generation, she’s still the best.”

Mrs Clinton responded in kind to her husband, saying: “People ask me all the time ‘If you are elected will you make him Secretary of State?’ Since President Kennedy and Robert Kennedy I think that is illegal but I sure will make him ambassador of the world because we have a lot of work to do.”

Dollar election

— Spending on the 2008 election is forecast to top $1 billion (£510 million) for the first time

— Hillary Clinton is expected to declare a minimum of $15 million and possibly $50 million for the first quarter, in returns to be filed this month — one of several candidates planning to raise $100 million by the end of the year.

— The previous record for a Democratic candiate at this stage was $7.5 million raised by John Edwards in 2003.

— The entire cost of the British general election in 2005 was £35 million.

Sources: AP, Federal Election Commission, UK Electoral Commission Washington Post

Times Recommends

• It’s only Brits who don’t appreciate me, says Blair
• Party’s over for Greek graspers
• White House tightens security for Xmas marathon