Obama, Clinton side with anti-war Democrats

WASHINGTON, May 25 (Reuters) Sens Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton earned praise from anti-war activists but criticism from Republicans today for voting against a measure to pay for the Iraq war that sets no timetables for withdrawing US troops.

The two leading 2008 Democratic presidential contenders had been under heavy pressure from the party's influential anti-war wing and from other Democratic candidates to oppose the emergency funding bill sought by President George W. Bush.

Unlike an earlier funding bill that Bush vetoed on May 1, the bill comfortably passed late yesterday by both the Senate and House of Representatives was not tied to deadlines for troop withdrawals.

Obama and Clinton had refused for days to say how they would vote, but ultimately sided with opponents of the increasingly unpopular war.

Liberal advocacy groups like MoveOn.org had warned Democrats who backed the measure of possible political consequences.

Republican presidential contenders John McCain and Mitt Romney blasted Obama and Clinton for not supporting US troops -- a criticism certain to linger into next year's general election campaign and the November 2008 vote for the White House.

''I was very disappointed to see Senator Obama and Senator Clinton embrace the policy of surrender,'' said McCain, an Arizona senator who backed the bill.

''This vote may win favor with MoveOn and liberal primary voters, but it's the equivalent of waving a white flag to al Qaeda,'' he said.

Two other Democratic senators running for president split their votes on the bill, with Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd voting against it and Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden for it.

The votes against the bill, which passed 280-142 in the House and 80-14 in the Senate and is now set for Bush's signature, pleased anti-war groups. Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org, said no member of Congress who voted for the bill could pretend to be an opponent of the war.

''Senators Obama, Clinton and Dodd stood up and did the right thing -- voting down the president's war policy,'' he said.

''They're showing real leadership toward ending the war, and MoveOn's members are grateful. This bold stand ... won't soon be forgotten.'' Other Democratic contenders like John Edwards, a former senator, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson had urged Congress and their rivals to reject the measure.

Clinton has angered some anti-war Democrats with her refusal to apologize or repudiate her 2002 vote to authorize the war in Iraq.

Obama has stressed his early opposition to the war.

While initially reluctant to back withdrawal timetables, both Clinton and Obama supported the earlier bill that included them.

Analysts said opposing the bill was the safe choice for Democrats in a country that has turned against the war. But the delay in making a decision by Obama and Clinton could make them appear calculating, said Cal Jillson, a political analyst at Southern Methodist University in Texas.

''Neither Hillary nor Obama have been beacons of courage,'' he said. ''People are saying 'Do you guys have the sense of self and the confidence to state a position and then defend it?' And both of them have been hiding in the bushes.'' Clinton, of New York, said she supported the troops but ultimately opposed the bill because ''it fails to compel the president to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq.'' Obama said US troops deserved more.

''This vote is a choice between validating the same failed policy in Iraq that has cost us so many lives and demanding a new one. And I am demanding a new one,'' said Obama, a senator from Illinois.

Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and proponent of a plan to partition Iraq into three regions, said Democrats did not have the votes yet to overcome Bush's veto and should face the political reality that troops needed to be funded.

''The president may be prepared to play a game of political chicken with the well-being of our troops. I am not. I will not,'' Biden said.

REUTERS JK BST2333