I blogged about this earlier in the week, and sure enough, its becoming the trend. In Kentucky, Jack Conway, who is the AG running for the open Senate seat, has come out saying he "expresses reservations about President Obama's plan for troop surge" and that Obama has not adequately expressed a rationale for sending more troops.
Conway's position is in opposition to KY LG Dan Mongiardo, who stated yesterday that he was "inclined to support a troop surge in Afghanistan." Combine that with the contrast over mountaintop mountaintop removal for coal, which Conway opposes and Mongiardo supports, and it's pretty clear whom is the progressive in the primary.
So that's Kentucky.
In Ohio, Jennifer Brunner has already come out opposed to the surge of troops. I've not seen anything from her opponent, LG Lee Fisher. [edit., Lee Fisher does have a position, saying that 30,000 additional troops are not required.]
In Massachusetts, Martha Coakley joined Mike Capuano in opposition.
In Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter has stated he is opposed, and Joe Sestak is in favor, and its become a central defining issue between the two candidates.
In Illinois, one of the leading candidates, David Hoffman, has put out a statement saying: " I am skeptical that our mission in Afghanistan should be to spend years rebuilding the country with our armed forces at potentially great cost of American life."
These are all open primaries, where the candidates have their ears much closer to the ground of Democratic voters than those in DC currently do. I expect that we will see plenty of primary opportunities develop against incumbents whom are in Democratic strongholds that go along with support of the surge.
Look, when your allies are Byron York ("Obama keeps his Afghan promise") and Sarah Palin ("I support President Obama's decision"), you're on the wrong side of the issue.