I'd have been ecstatic to be proven wrong about the size and makeup of anti-war protests in the wake of Obama's ascension, but the chance of that happening was approximately .0000002%:
The protest [in Washington on Saturday] drew a smaller crowd than the tens of thousands who marched in 2006 and 2007. Protests in cities around the country also had far fewer participants than in the past.
(Though it's not saying much, San Francisco seemed to have a similar number of people as other anti-war protests of recent years—mainly, I'd guess, because the organizers cannily increased the numbers by reaching out to striking San Francisco hotel workers and students protesting University of California tuition increases and budget cuts. The crowd otherwise was mostly the usual suspects, though, and there was a striking lack of Obama-critical signs.)
The article mentions that some people—though the only ones it names are Cindy Sheehan and Ralph Nader—put the blame for our country's current atrocities squarely where it belongs: on the charming, intelligent Democrat whose finger is now on the trigger. But even among those who had the moral consistency to participate in this protest, there was some discomfort with that kind of talk:
Others were more conciliatory toward Obama. Shirley Allan of Silver Spring, Md., carried a sign that read, "President Obama We love you but we need to tell you! Your hands are getting bloody!! Stop it now."
Allan thought it was going too far to call Obama a war criminal but said she is deeply disappointed that the conflicts are continuing.
"He has to know it's unacceptable," Allan said. "I am absolutely disappointed."
On the one hand, good for Allan for taking the Metro down from Silver Spring and standing up for something that matters. On the other hand, "we love you"? "Disappointed"? And does she really think the blood on Obama's hands snuck there on its own, and he's somehow unaware of it? I also have to wonder if she'd have had any qualms about using the term "war criminal" for a Republican president who'd vastly increased the rate of drone attacks (and concomitant civilian killings) in Pakistan, escalated the assault on Afghanistan, killed over 120 people in cruise missile strikes in Yemen, and other similar atrocities.
I don't mean to be critical of Allan; she deserves credit for taking a stand, especially given how she feels about the new killer-in-chief. Nonetheless, this is a textbook example of the fog of Democratic war. The problem with Obama is that far too many people—even those willing to give up a Saturday afternoon to protest his wars—think of him as an ally who needs to be persuaded rather than an enemy who needs to be opposed. Yes, there's much in Obama's background (and self-promoting literary output) that suggests that beneath that cool, calculating exterior bleeds the heart of a true liberal, but nonetheless, no, he most certainly does not share your values—unless your values include extrajudicial executions, throwing bushels of money at the military, saying "the CIA gets what it needs", and blithely kissing your own children goodnight as you're vaporizing other people's kids thousands of miles away. Then he's your kind of guy.
The evidence for that already approached overwhelming levels before Obama was even inaugurated, and everything he's done since taking power has only added to it. But it doesn't even qualify as a prediction to say that the vast majority of liberals—including those who (to their credit) spent some time between 2001 and 2009 in the streets objecting to Bush and his wars—will avoid reaching that conclusion for, oh, approximately 34 (or god forbid, 82) more months.