NEW YORK: Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s move to repeal President George W. Bush’s authority for the Iraq war amounts to a do-over — an effort to rectify her most glaring vulnerability among presidential primary voters.

And this from a candidate who when pressed to explain her 2002 vote giving a green light to the invasion often says — “There are no do-overs in life.”

Clinton, a New York Democrat, joined Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, on Thursday on legislation that would repeal congressional authorisation for the war and require Bush to seek new authority from Congress to extend the conflict beyond Oct 11, 2007 — five years after the original permission was given.

For the Democratic front-runner, the bill represents her latest effort to step away from a vote for which she refuses to apologise but which has caused her no end of political headaches.

“For someone who voted for the authorisation, she disappoints Democratic activist audiences by saying a different president would have used the authority better,” Democratic strategist Erik Smith said. “This legislation shows she’s exhibiting leadership and taking some action, which might answer a lot of activists’ concerns.”

Still, Smith said, “There will certainly be people who will say, ‘Why didn’t you do this years ago?’”

Anti-war activists and other Democrats routinely grill her about the vote on the campaign trail. It has also proven to be a valuable opening for her rivals, especially Sen. Barack Obama, who has made early opposition to the war a campaign centrepiece.

Obama’s campaign issued a lukewarm response to what it called the “Byrd measure,” noting the Illinois senator had introduced legislation to begin redeploying troops this month.

“As someone who opposed this war from the start, and opposed its authorisation by those in Congress, Senator Obama would support this measure,” spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. “But he doesn’t believe we should wait until October to begin bringing this war to a close.”

Another top rival, John Edwards, criticised Clinton’s bill as insufficient on Friday but never referred to her by name.

A former North Carolina senator, Edwards voted for the 2002 war authorisation but has since recanted his vote. At a campaign stop in New Orleans, he insisted Congress use its funding authority to end the war.

“Congress, right this minute, has the authority to stop this. All they have to do is use it instead of doing these other measures that are off in the future,” he told the news agency.

Clinton aides have long insisted voters care more about how to end the war than revisiting how it started. But privately, they have fretted considerably about what the vote has cost her among primary voters. As a result, Clinton has sharpened her anti-war rhetoric over the course of the campaign, even bringing delegates to their feet at the California Democratic Convention last weekend with a call to “End this war now!”

Her legislation takes her evolution a step farther, pairing her with a visible anti-war stalwart, Byrd, and offering a decisive end to a seemingly intractable conflict.

Bush vetoed legislation this week that would have tied funding for the war to a timetable for the withdrawal of troops. Clinton voted for the legislation, as did all the other Democratic contenders who are members of the Senate.

None has said what they will do if the next version they are asked to vote on drops the timetable for troop withdrawals.

Another 2008 contender, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, first broached the idea of deauthorising the war at a speech to the Democratic National Committee in February.

In a telephone interview on Friday, Richardson generally praised Clinton’s bill but said it did not go far enough. He advocated a binding resolution that would reinforce Congress’s authority to start wars and end them — a strategy that could require the Supreme Court to intervene.—AP