It's a truism among friends who are Middle East historians. The popularity of the US government in any Middle Eastern country rises and falls in inverse proportion to the degree to which the US is seen to prop up their own government. Where the US is held up as an enemy of the state, we tend to be wildly popular among the people. Wherever we're closely allied to an oppressive regime, the people resent America deeply. The same is true in some other regions too. So for example, as DHinMI notes, only 15% of Pakistanis have a favorable view of the US. If the Bush administration were to take a more skeptical view of Musharraf, our popularity would start to rise.
A similarly counter-intuitive dynamic has been at work for months at Daily Kos, I suspect. Others report having the very same reactions I've noticed. When I'm reading a candidate puff diary, I typically feel pretty hostile to whichever candidate the diarist is supporting. When I see a candidate being blasted in an attack diary, my instinctive reaction is to think better of the victim.
A word to the wise, then. If you can't build some intellectual distance between yourself and any of the candidates, then you're probably achieving the opposite of what you suppose. Good intentions guarantee nothing. Some diarists and commenters need to learn to play it cool. I'm truly sick of being sickened by your support for whomever.
Oh, and by the way, the chances are that your candidate won't gain the nomination anyway.