While President Obama is visiting China, the difficult question of what to do in Afghanistan remains strongly in the minds of our Readers Who Comment as they dissect a new Washington Post-ABC News poll that finds a majority of Americans confident Obama will select a strategy that works.

But readers are deeply split on the subject. Some question the poll's findings and integrity, without bothering to provide the rationale for their comments. Others argue the underlying question of whether we should even still be in Afghanistan. Some urge support for the troops; others call for immediate withdrawal.

As pollster Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta write, "Ratings of the president's handling of Afghanistan have plummeted since the summer, turning what had been one of his most favorably regarded issues into another nearly even split: 45 percent approve of how he is dealing with it, while 48 percent disapprove."

Our Readers Who Comment are in a mudslinging debate about the news that some business interests and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are collecting money to finance a study showing the job killing potential of health-care reform as Senate debate approaches.

As Michael D. Shear reports in one of several health-care related stories and columns today, "The behind-the-scenes effort by the business groups to influence the legislative debate is part of an intensifying series of attacks by the opponents of Democratic health-care plans."

Some readers call this a travesty of justice and ask how to stop it; others argue the well-known talking points on both sides of the central issues. There is also an article addressing the question of what should be done about care for some immigrants; there is an Associated Press report that the government paid more than $47 billion in questionable Medicare claims in 2009, and there is a Robert J. Samuelson column arguing that the health care overhaul plans would "would almost certainly make matters worse" for the nation's economy.

President Obama's performance as Commander in Chief is getting bad reviews from many of our Readers Who Comment today as they ponder how the president is responding to the challenges of Afghanistan and Fort Hood.

The reaction comes to Joel Achenbach's observation that Obama, "Visibly thinner, admittedly skipping meals..., is learning every day the challenges of a wartime presidency." The observation came after the President made somber visits to Fort Hood and to Arlington National Cemetery on Veterans Day.

There is the usual Obama bashing from the same readers who saw nothing to value in his candidacy and are bringing the same unexamined perspective to their remarks. But there are a number of thoughtful comments both questioning and defending the president. The charge of dithering about Afghanistan is often repeated, but attacked by some who have experienced war firsthand -- they applaud study. Several make comparisons to Jimmy Carter's one-term presidency and predict the same for Obama.

The decision is complicated by another story today, that the U.S. ambasador in Kabul has expressed deep concerns about sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan until President Hamid Karzai's government demonstrates that it is willing to tackle corruption and mismanagement.

The execution of sniper John Allen Muhammad last night by the state of Virginia has ignited an impassioned and sometimes uncivilized conversation among our Readers Who Comment as they debate the value of the death penalty and recall the fear that enslaved the Washington area for days.

Those several hundred comments that express support for the death penalty seem angry about those who oppose it; those who oppose it seem sad that another life has been taken. One compared execution to abortion. Some readers cheer that Virginia (rather than Maryland) was the state that prosecuted Muhammad, because Virginia has a long tradition of imposing death sentences. Several writers suggest that the Fort Hood killer should receive the same.

Some comments say that Muhammad's rampage is what one can expect of Muslims or blacks; others point out the Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, was white. If nothing else, this string shows a nation strongly divided on this issue, if unquestionably horrified at the days of fear that so palpably gripped this region.

Our Readers Who Comment are debating the morality of abortion and whether federal health care legislation should prohibit its funding.

The House-passed health care bill would sharply restrict the availability of coverage for abortions, which many insurance plans offer. As Alec MacGillis writes, "The amendment goes beyond long-standing prohibitions against public funding for abortions, limiting abortion coverage even for women paying for it without government subsidies."

Many readers cheer this position; many others abhor it. Some of the debate is based on the question of what role if any religious beliefs should play but there is also the underlying argument about whether government has any business in health care. Those who want a public option for health-care insurance are also concerned that the abortion issue will get in the way of the greater good. We still have a ways to go to join the rest of the civilized world in providing decent health care for all of us.

Our Democratic Readers Who Comment this morning on Tuesday's elections say too many people don't have jobs and health care reform should pass. Our Republican Readers cheer their glorious gubernatorial victories in New Jersey and Virginia and attack big government. However, neither group seems particularly happy with the way things are.

Reader comments come in response to a two-story package that says Democrats are having a nervous debate about where they should go after losing in Virginia and New Jersey and the Republicans face ideological fissures as they contemplate their loss of an upstate New York congressional district they had held for more than a century.

Our Readers Who Comment are engaging in partisan political analysis this morning. Those who sound like Democrats say the Republican sweep of gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey was because their party had bad candidates; those who sound like Republicans say this is the beginning of the end of the Obama presidency.

But as political analyst Dan Balz writes, "Neither gubernatorial election amounted to a referendum on the president, but the changing shape of the electorates in both states and the shifts among key constituencies revealed cracks in the Obama 2008 coalition and demonstrated that, at this point, Republicans have the more energized constituency heading into next year's midterm elections."

In many ways the readers echo the comments they made during the last presidential campaign. There's mud-slinging and name calling from each side, updated with references to health care and other current issues. There is also an entertaining sidebar conversation about the Democratic victory in the fascinating upstate New York congressional district that had been Republican forever.

Our Readers Who Comment are arguing about whether global warming exists, whether nuclear power plants are a good idea and the relative merits of the American political belief system because of a Post report that climate change legislation has no chance of passing the Senate unless some Republicans decide to vote for it.

As reporter Juliet Eilperin writes, "So Democratic leaders, with the support of the Obama administration, are trying to sway at least half a dozen Republicans by offering amendments to speed along their top priority: building nuclear power plants."

There is more than the usual political name calling. Democrats use the term rethuglicans to attack the other party and accuse their own for not getting anything done, a reference both to health care legislation and global warming. Republicans complain that all Democrats want to do is tax and spend.

One thing most of our Readers Who Comment do not want is another study of Afghanistan -- this time of its provincial leadership -- before President Obama makes a decision about how to proceed with the war in that country.

While White House deliberations about Afghanistan have continued over recent weeks, more and more readers have expressed frustration at the pace, and many say the president is dithering. While a few of today's commenters support the process, this thread of more than 300 comments (8:50 a.m. EDT) is the strongest call for a decision I have seen from those who write in.

As Post reporters Scott Wilson and Greg Jaffe write, "The detail [Obama] is now seeking... reflects the administration's turn toward Afghanistan's provincial governors, tribal leaders and local militias as potentially more effective partners in the effort than a historically weak central government..."

Several who comment also see irony in the timing of this request with President Obama's pre-dawn visit to Dover Air Force Base to pay homage to the fallen as their remains were flown back to the United States.

Our Readers Who Comment are debating the economy today and, while they disagree about whom to blame, are concerned that the recovery may be threatened.

Some do not see improvement in their neighborhoods or businesses. Some think things are better because of government actions, but worry that about the long-term consequences of federal debt. Inevitably, there is a political food fight going on between those who blame the previous Bush Administration and those who think President Obama will blow it if he hasn't already.

Whatever. As Neil Irwin writes in his excellent piece, "While the government has successfully jump-started the U.S. economy, there are emerging signs that its engine still isn't running very well, and may even sputter out."