Democrats moving to the left on war

WASHINGTON -- All four Democratic senators running for president voted yesterday to advance a measure that would cut off funding for the Iraq war by March 2008, a reversal of the lawmakers' 2006 votes on the same issue and a sign of the growing polarization of GOP and Democratic presidential candidates on the war.

Leading Republican contenders have competed mightily to be the strongest supporter of the war, which they described as integral to fighting terrorism.

Meanwhile, the Democrats -- several of whom hedged their positions on the war last year and earlier this year -- are now burnishing their antiwar images with primary voters. While their effort yesterday failed, they are calling for scheduled troop withdrawals and taking other Democratic candidates to task , contending they are too weak on the issue.

"They're all playing to their party bases," said Representative Tom Davis of Virginia, who was among a group of GOP lawmakers who warned the president about public disfavor over the war. But both hard-line positions may get the candidates into trouble, Davis and others said. Several Republican candidates have crafted conditions for their support that would let them break with the Bush administration during the campaign if things fall apart completely in Iraq, but the GOP contenders have largely stood by the president.

Davis said Democrats, for their part, are likely to have "buyer's remorse" if they continue to push for a cut in funding or a forced troop withdrawal; many Americans will accuse them of not supporting the troops. But "there is no question the war is not going well," Davis added, and Republican presidential candidates must make sure their desire to support Bush does not alienate an increasingly antiwar electorate.

Representative Richard E. Neal, Democrat of Springfield, said the 2008 election is likely to be similar to the presidential campaigns of 1968 and 1972, when Democrats were divided over the Vietnam War. But this time, Neal said, "it will end up fracturing the Republican Party."

Although the war continues to be a bitterly contentious issue on Capitol Hill, lawmakers in Washington have shown some willingness to come closer on the issue. The White House recently signaled a readiness to consider certain "benchmarks" of success in Iraq as part of a bill to continue funding for the war, and several congressional Republicans have backed modest efforts meant to impose accountability for the progress or lack of progress in Iraq.

Democratic leaders, meanwhile, agreed to continue negotiations on an Iraq war-funding bill after failing to override Bush's May 1 veto of a measure that would have cut off war funding as early as July.

But the presidential candidates are largely sticking to hard-line positions on the war, a tactic political officials say may help them secure their party's respective nominations, but could alienate independents and voters in the other party in a general election.

Republican presidential hopefuls have stuck close to Bush on Iraq, largely supporting the "surge" of extra troops to secure the nation and insisting that the war is key to fighting terrorism. At Tuesday night's debate in South Carolina, Representative Ron Paul of Texas -- one of the few Republicans to vote against the war resolution in 2002 -- was roundly derided for his antiwar stance by the remaining candidates, who sought to distinguish themselves as the toughest potential commander in chief.

Despite the hawkish views of the GOP field overall, former governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Senator John McCain of Arizona have somewhat qualified their support for the troop "surge." Romney said in a "60 Minutes" interview broadcast Sunday that it would be clear "in a matter of months" whether the troop boost was working or not. Both men, however, have firmly remained in favor of the war .

The Democratic field, meanwhile, has moved steadily toward a more hard-line antiwar position. Former senator John Edwards of North Carolina has urged lawmakers to keep sending Bush a bill to cut off funding, despite the fact that president would certainly veto it every time it came to his desk.

Senator Christopher J. Dodd , Democrat of Connecticut, is a co sponsor of a measure with Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, to set a date for the completion of a phased withdrawal of major combat troops from Iraq. Dodd voted against a similar measure last year, but he has grown increasingly frustrated over the war and recently ran TV ads calling on his colleagues to support the idea.

The Feingold-Dodd measure drew just 29 votes yesterday in favor of a procedural measure to begin debate on the matter. Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton of New York, Barack Obama of Illinois, and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware joined Dodd in the vote, even though the three had rejected the idea in June. The senators said they want to send Bush a message.

That still wasn't enough for Dodd, who wondered aloud why they, too, did not sign on as cosponsors of the measure.

"What people don't like is this lack of directness," Dodd said.

Representative Dennis J. Kucinich , an Ohio Democrat who has staked out the sharpest antiwar position among the eight declared Democratic contenders, dismissed his colleagues' antiwar rhetoric as "phony."

"These senators have voted continually to fund the war. If you vote to fund the war, you vote to authorize it all over again," Kucinich said.

Despite party differences, Congress is expected to pass some kind of Iraq funding bill, and congressional leaders hope the measure will be completed before Memorial Day. But while Democrats acknowledge they do not have the votes to impose a scheduled withdrawal of troops, they insist they will find ways to hold the president accountable.

"He's not going to get a blank check," said Harry Reid , Democrat of Nevada and Senate majority leader.

Scott Helman of the Globe staff contributed to this report.