Required Reading

1) From the Philadelphia Inquirer, "Way Past Time for U.S. to Recommit to Afghanistan" by Senator Robert Casey.

I love the smell of a moldy talking point in the morning. Having been caught flatfooted by the Iraq war going unexpectedly well, the Democratic party has developed a sudden need to find a new Bush foreign policy fiasco to whine about. The answer? Afghanistan.

In this tedious op-ed, Senator Casey repeats every exhausted trope about Afghanistan that you've heard Democratic talking heads mutter since the dark days when John Kerry was a national figure. "Our initial success in Afghanistan was followed by years of neglect…The Bush administration took its eye off the ball by shifting U.S. military forces out of Afghanistan during the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Our senior uniformed military officers acknowledge that the United States continues to have inadequate forces in Afghanistan, in large part due to the demands of our ongoing presence in Iraq."

So here's the question: Is Senator Casey actually suggesting that we send more of our children into Afghanistan, the great maw of death and the burial ground of empire? That would be pretty bold stuff. Casey does specifically call for a "Marshall Plan for Afghanistan," but I'm unclear what such a gambit involves.

And what of the Democrats' presumptive nominee? Barack Obama has used similar language in discussing Afghanistan. Does his vision of "recommitting" and "putting our eye back on the ball" include sending more troops? Or is it all just a bunch of rhetorical gobbledygook, and do the Democrats have as little interest in constructively engaging Afghanistan as they do Iraq?

I'll save you a trip to BarackObama.com to seek out the answer. "Afghanistan" doesn't even rank as an issue that the site deems fit of mention. Then again, if you wish to further your knowledge on Obama's positions on such pressing and controversial matters as "Rural" or "Ethics," then don't let me dissuade you from taking a gander.

2) From NextRight.com, "The Election Will Polarize Around Obama" by Patrick Ruffini.

Ruffini, my erstwhile blogging partner at HughHewitt.com, piggybacks on a Politico report regarding the way Obama dominates the campaign and concludes, "It's probably not a wise use of the McCain campaign's time to try and dominate the news cycle and the public consciousness in the same way Obama does, but rather to ensure that in an election that can easily be summed up as Obama vs. Not Obama, Not Obama wins the narrative." Ruffini also mentions the golden James Carville quote, "There has never been a major party candidate less relevant in an election than John McCain. It's all about Obama."

Ruffini's final observation is also worth pondering: "Obama is a cultural icon. But so are Tom Cruise and Britney Spears. The danger to this celebrity strategy is that it's rendering Obama's trump card -- partisan contrast and ‘Bush's third term' -- irrelevant." Could Obama have raised expectations so high that when/if he falls, the crash will be mighty and irrevocable? Our recent presidents who achieved truly stratospheric and thus trans-partisan approval ratings (Bush 41 and 43) never recovered their footing when they fell from their perch.

For some reason, this entire conversation has upset the normally placid Andrew Sullivan, who lashed out at Ruffini, "Keep throwing s**t at the horse, Patrick. But it didn't work for the Clintons and it doesn't seem to be working for McCain."

I have to admit, I'm unfamiliar with the metaphor of throwing dung at a horse. I've heard of throwing dung at a wall and seeing what sticks, but this one is new to me. But that's what's so great about the blogosphere - you learn interesting new uses for obscenities virtually every day.

3) From the New York Times, "Lurching with Abandon" by Bob Herbert.

Some good blue-on-blue action:

Tacking toward the center in a general election is as common as kissing babies in a campaign, and lord knows the Democrats need to expand their coalition.