I was on a blogger call with Sen. Russ Feingold last night, and I was struck by his desire to lead with his opposition to the war in Afghanistan, as a show of his independence and his Constitutionally derived duty to act as an independent check on the executive. And he painted his opponent, Ron Johnson, as someone with an “unconstitutional view” of the job of Senator.

Feingold acknowledged a challenging race this year in Wisconsin. He said the political environment is focused on jobs, the economy and spending, and that Johnson, who is spending millions in a record-breaking series of campaign ads, is trying to take advantage of the economic difficulties. Nevertheless, he sees a lot of support on the ground, despite a series of attacks from Johnson.

“He thinks two votes should take me out of office: the Recovery Act and the health care bill,” said Feingold. He didn’t shy away from defending both of them, saying that the Recovery Act has brought “lots of private jobs to Wisconsin” (where the unemployment rate, once in double digits, has dipped to 7.8%) and that repealing the health care bill (which Johnson lists as his top priority) would deprive 1 million Wisconsinites of insurance along with all the other benefits in the bill (covering the donut hole, kids covered up to age 26 on their parent’s policies, etc.).

However, Feingold focused just as much on where he differed with his party, and in some cases the President. “I’ve made a career of opposing these unfair trade agreements,” Feingold said. “And I’ve opposed this Wall Street stuff, from repealing Glass-Steagall to TARP.”

But Feingold saved his greatest fervor for his opposition to the war in Afghanistan, and in particular a little-noticed article in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Feingold, who proudly stood behind his record of demanding a timetable for withdrawal out of Afghanistan, criticized Johnson for this passage:

Johnson’s most pointed comments were directed at Feingold, saying that when he and other senators “come out and start demanding a U.S. pullout and that kind of thing in public, it just undermines what our troops are trying to do.”

Said Johnson: “That’s not saying if you have real grave concerns as a member of Congress you should not be talking to the administration. It’s just extremely harmful to our nation when it’s all done in public.”

Asked whether he was saying it’s improper for Feingold or other senators to be speaking out publicly against the war, Johnson said: “I guess what I really object to is how quick and early he has been throughout his career (to criticize military action) . . . he has been carping about this from the sidelines forever.”

Johnson then repeated his suggestion that when there are troops in the field, lawmakers opposed to U.S. policy should be expressing their opposition in private rather than in public.

“There’s an appropriate way of opposing a policy and an inappropriate way,” he said. “The appropriate way if I’m a U.S. senator is going to be not public. If I’m opposed to something, I’ll make those views known very, very well, but privately with the administration.”

“He would oppose wars only in private,” Feingold said, incredulously. “I’ve never heard anyone who understands their Constitution that the legislative branch should only oppose a war in private.” Feingold explained that Johnson would have to remain silent in town meetings on his true beliefs. He would have to decline to attend briefings and hearings lest his opinions be known. “He has an unconstitutional view of his job. It should be a major thing for the people of Wisconsin to send someone to Washington who doesn’t understand the most fundamental aspects of how to do the job.”

Feingold used this and other strange statements from Johnson, like the idea that global warming is caused by sunspots and Greenland used to be green, to paint the businessman as an extremist in the Sharron Angle/Rand Paul mold.

It’s unusual for a Democrat to use their antiwar bona fides so directly in an election, but Feingold has judged not only that the public views the war skeptically, but they will admire someone with the conviction to speak out, even if they don’t agree with the opinion. Feingold noted that his last race in 2004 had a strong foreign policy component, which attacks on him for voting against the Patriot Act and opposing the war in Iraq. “And I won 27 counties that Bush won,” he added.

The Wisconsin Senator is no stranger to being outspent. In 1998 Mark Neumann ran millions of dollars’ worth of ads in soft money, and Feingold refused to allow his Democratic campaign committees to match that. “We ran an ad called The High Road, and pointed out that they were trying to buy the election… I had a very close race, but we won 51-49.” He didn’t feel the Citizens United decision would affect his race personally, because Johnson was spending so much of his own money. But the sentiment of his opponent trying to buy off the voters could be a theme of the campaign.

“When I go to Main Streets in Wisconsin, people aren’t angry,” Feingold said, discussing the economic anxieties that Johnson and other Republicans are looking to capitalize on this year. “They’re worried, but they’re cautiously optimistic about the future. It’s typical Wisconsin optimism.”