Reality check: Democrats give Obama high marks on Afghanistan.

76% of Democrats rate Obama's handling of Afghanistan as good or very good. The same number of Republicans rate it poor or very poor.



58% of Americans approve of Obama's withdrawal timetable in Afghanistan.



...and by party, 80% of Democrats favor his withdrawal timetable.

get completely out of Afghanistan by July, 2011 rather than just beginning to withdrawal. Let's end the occupation and war in Iraq too.

That said if McCain were in there both wars would be going full tilt with no time tables set at all.

their bodies?

Only 7% of the adult population favors early ( before 2011) or immediate withdrawal?

That's a lie.

DU would've overwhelmingly elected Kucinich in the last cycle, for example -- something like 80% of the vote here, IIRC.

The "reality check" is more that many here who claim to speak for Democrats regarding this issue, clearly do not.

...the "average Dem" thinks Obama's strategy isn't "war and more war."

I do think he'll end the war---but at the same time...I'm surprised Dems are okay on average with it. This was one issue I never supported him on .

>>>I'm surprised Dems are okay on average with it. This was one issue I never supported him on .>>>>

Polls are easily manipulated to produce results desired by the pollster. There is a myriad of ways to accomplish this. Starting with the way the quetions are asked.

When pro-war DEMs run head to head with antiwar DEMs in head to head primaries they tend to get clobbered at the voting booth. Lieberman vs. Lamont, Clinton vs. Obama, etc.

There is no way that 93% of registered voters are *opposed* to a US withdrawal before mid 2011.

Period.

Gallup tends to be the one of the most trustworthy polls around. As for your statements on pro-war versus anti-war <---Did you ever listen to Obama? Hell no, was he anti-war.

That was one of my major issues with Obama during the primaries, he was NOT anti-war. He was very pro-war. Actually more so at times than HRC in his rhetoric. And he did clobber Clinton, but he never had a anti-war feel. Unlike Clinton he did set a push for a logical reduction over a period of time. And he hasn't strayed from that, but O is far from anti-war.

>>>>>In foreign affairs, Obama was an early opponent of the George W. Bush administration's policies on Iraq.<220> On October 2, 2002, the day President Bush and Congress agreed on the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War,<221> Obama addressed the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq War rally,<222> and spoke out against the war.<223> He addressed another anti-war rally in March 2003 and told the crowd that "it's not too late" to stop the war.<224>>>>>>> source: wiki

The vast majority of people within the party for whom "the wars" were the major issue supported Obama and not Clinton for this reason.

Yes, in the course of he campaign, both Obama and Clinton hedged; Clinton to win back the DEM base and Obama to position himself in the general election as a foreign policy "moderate" to appeal to ( presumably) hawkish swing voters. But most DEMs assumed he was "taking a position" and not describing a policy approach that would be characteristic of his first term.

The fact that we were wrong about THAT doesn't mean that most DEMs didn't vote for the Obama in the above excerpt. We did.

Problem is: we elected Obama but got Clinton. Much like '64: we elected Johnson and got Goldwater.

Politics sometimes...... I'm tellin' ya.

When he was running for office he was definitely not promoting anti-war sentiments. He said to end our occupation of Iraq, which he began to do and he said to focus our attention on Afghanistan. Which is also what he is doing---and he supported the more troops. He does act moderately. After the McChrystal debacle it was safe to see the difference between HRC and Obama. HRC was like unlimited troops, unlimited war okay. and Obama took the middle of the road between her and Biden. However, again, he never stopped pushing this idea that Afghanistan is the threat and we need to go after it. If Dems believed otherwise, they disillusioned themselves. As a matter of fact, the poll above, if it's true, proves they heard him very clearly and were not disillusioned since they agree with the steps he's taking. DU Dems on the other hand are a whole other kettle of fish and I think when you say "Dems assumed" you were speaking about DU Dems not the rest of them in the US.

I'm against the war but it's a reality, and I approve of the strategy.

Which just proves how hypocritical Republicans are. They want the war. They just say Obama's strategy is not good just because they can't consider a Dem president would ever do anything right when it comes to war.

the Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc. I imagine that accounts for the high numbers.

I live in Kentucky and I'd say about half of everybody from fundy to bohemian is over it and most everyone else except the freeper types are getting that way of it but are "giving Obama a chance" or "trust Obama".

This is a no win, support will almost certainly erode with time, particularly among Democrats.

This is a huge capital burn that will carry through the election but November 2012 is a different story.

Millions of people losing unemployment benefits while we piss money into a hopeless venture will grate. Screwing around with Social Security and gutting Medicare while spending billions on chasing supposedly a hundred wilderness wanderers will stick in the craw.

This turkey is an agenda killer with no satisfactory explanation of how to achieve a victory that is by all accounts elusive is no winner with Democrats, some are sucking up to support the President BIG TIME and their is little sense painting it as some overwhelming support of the war it's self and that only Republicans hate the war.

It's fucking preposterous. Are we going to bring back the color code alerts and go on about "terrah...9/11...terrah" through the election?

To what character flaw in nearly everyone else do you attribute this?

unquestioning respect to authority, and party over principles for the most part.

Plain old stupid is also acceptable as is owns certain stocks that may benefit.

:eyes:

:hi:

:rofl:

That means if we keep to it, it helps reelection chances immensely--as it'll happen close to an election year and dominate the press.

Plus, you know, it has the added benefit of being the right thing to do.

There is only the goal of starting to begin the reduction of the surged troops, based on conditions. How can people answer accurately to an undefined 'timetable'?

Also, I would like to see these numbers compared to several months ago. If you have a link to look back a few months, that would be helpful.