In October of 2009 I wrote the following about the anti-Republican-war movement:
The anti-war movement that briefly manifested itself during Bush's reign was not the homogeneous whole it may have appeared to be, but two separate and distinct entities: 1) a genuine anti-war movement, comprising a relatively small number of people who oppose U.S. assaults on other countries no matter who's waging them, and 2) a much larger group of anti-Republican-war activists, the majority of whom are much more content with killing Afghans now that such an articulate and personable Democrat is calling the shots, while the rest are at least willing to spot Obama a few morgues' worth of corpses before they'll decide if the killing he's doing is likely to "succeed" or not.
Apparently researchers at the University of Michigan were so intrigued by this essay that they decided to do a 46-page study (PDF), replete with charts, graphs, interviews, and footnotes, to test my assertions. And what did they find?
[T]he antiwar movement demobilized as Democrats, who had been motivated to participate by anti?Republican sentiments, withdrew from antiwar protests when the Democratic Party achieved electoral success, if not policy success in ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The withdrawal of Democratic activists changed the character of the antiwar movement by undermining broad coalitions in the movement and encouraging the formation of smaller, more radical coalitions. While the election of Barack Obama had been heralded as a victory for the antiwar movement, Obama’s election, in fact, thwarted the ability of the movement to achieve critical mass.
Trust, as long as they're not Obama fans, but definitely verify.