From the New York Times:

"There is a growing disbelief among Californians that the White House is really representing their views and interests," said Mark Baldassare, the director of research at the Public Policy Institute of California, a nonpartisan group in San Francisco that recently conducted an opinion poll of public attitudes toward President Bush, the war, which was then imminent, and other issues.

(The poll, for completists, can be found here.)

Mr. Baldassare said this attitude had been building for several years, starting with the state's energy crisis and the administration's handling of it. "Because of this disconnect," he said, "many Californians don't give the president the benefit of the doubt on the issue of Iraq any more than they give the president the benefit of the doubt on whether we really need to do away with taxes on dividends or whether a tax cut will lead to a better economy."



In fact, many people acknowledged that they might feel differently if a Democrat were leading them into battle. "I was wondering if I would feel more
comfortable if it were Bill Clinton and Al Gore saying we needed to do this now, and I think I would," said Felicia Marcus, who was the regional administrator
in California for the United States Environmental Protection Agency in the Clinton administration.



Any more questions on the raw political nature of the antiwar movement?

If Clinton were doing this as President, the exact same thing, there wouldn't BE an antiwar movement, and France would probably be enthusiastically on our side.

During some lunchtime and office-cooler chatter there has even been longing for President Clinton, a Hollywood favorite, who, the reasoning goes, would
never have allowed a war to play havoc with Oscar night, one of the state's most hallowed traditions.

Pretty much says it all.