Young people of Iran are no longer perceiving the US as their enemy after President Obama graciously offered an unclenched hand. Three quarters of the population is under thirty. They can no longer justify Ahmadinejad’s extremism and repression to maintain the status quo. President Obama was the catalyst for positive change.

Their vehicle for change is the Democratic process – which does appear to have failed. Gunboat diplomacy would simply have the opposite effect and re-solidify support for Ahmadinejad.

‘Tim’ – Using the term ‘liberal’ in the way you have here is defined as ‘thinks for themselves, reads books, considers both sides of issues and not dependent on FoxNews and talk radio to formulate opinions’.

This sort of rhetoric will, unfortunately, continue to drive people away from the Republican party. The appeal to ignorance has played itself out.

“Is there really any question about Iran’s publicly-stated intention to wipe Israel off the map?”
Yes, of course there is, in fact as stated above it’s entirely false. Easily confirmed by anyone who cares to actually check (versus parroting dittohead talking points). Here’s what actually was said:

“Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.”
That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word “regime.” pronounced just like the English word with an extra “eh” sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase “rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” (regime occupying Jerusalem).
So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want “wiped from the map”? The answer is: nothing. That’s because the word “map” was never used. The Persian word for map, “nagsheh” is not contained anywhere in his original Farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase “wipe out” ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran’s president threatened to “wipe Israel off the map.” despite never having uttered the words “map.” “wipe out” or even “Israel.”

The full quote translated directly to English:
“The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”
Word by word translation:
Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).
If that’s not apparent, why should we be listening to the rest of this nonsense?

Here’s the important conclusion being ignored here (from the Washington Post article originally linked):

Iranians view their support for a more democratic system, with normal relations with the United States, as consonant with their support for Ahmadinejad. They do not want him to continue his hard-line policies. Rather, Iranians apparently see Ahmadinejad as their toughest negotiator, the person best positioned to bring home a favorable deal — rather like a Persian Nixon going to China.
Allegations of fraud and electoral manipulation will serve to further isolate Iran and are likely to increase its belligerence and intransigence against the outside world. Before other countries, including the United States, jump to the conclusion that the Iranian presidential elections were fraudulent, with the grave consequences such charges could bring, they should consider all independent information. The fact may simply be that the reelection of President Ahmadinejad is what the Iranian people wanted.

Again, casting aspersions without proof of any problem with the poll tells me quite a bit. I’d say those on the right who refuse to “consider all independent information” including info that doesn’t conveniently dove-tail with neo-con talking points aren’t really interested in the freedom of the Iranian people (when’s the invasion planned?).

Not to get too geeky on you, but it is consistent to say that candidate had a 2 to 1 margin and not be likely to exceed 50% of the overall vote. The data are also consistent with the results because so many were undecided as you pointed out above. In any case, the real question is what proof exists that the election was stolen, not what proof exists that the election was not stolen. I’d add that the “Silence of the Bams” link above goes way further than the nuanced comments of these pollsters without any supporting data, all without question at least from most on this blog.
As near as I can tell the reasoning goes as follows:
– the election was stolen because we don’t like the winner
– Obama is bad for not interfering
– discussions of whether U.S. interference would help further the cause of reformers in Iran is less important than scoring domestic political points