This is wrong on so many levels.

Let us get passed the fact that this "liberal" wrote his op-ed piece in the wacko pages of the Wall Street Journal, itself a bastion of wacko right-wing nutbar op-eds.

Let us get passed the fact that once again a liberal goes after another liberal in a very very public way, making the case for the Republicans far better than they ever need to.

Let us simply focus on the argument made by Peretz, the editor-in-chief of The New Republic (do they have any subscribers left?). He furthers the Republican talking point that Ned Lamont is on the "fringe" and a creation of the "bloggers", and that it's a repeat of the 60's when the "left-wing radicals" (who were right btw) caused Democrats so many problems.

Peretz misses the point. Lamont isn't winning.

Lieberman is losing.

The Iraq is simply the poster-child issue for everything Bush. No typical voter will remember the individual stories regarding scandals, greed, fascism, the loss of civil liberties, incompetence, torture and any number of other individual elements of the Republican folly. However, the Iraq war nicely summarizes and epitomizes the whole ball of wax. And unfortunately for Joementum, he is the poster child for everything wrong with the corporate Democrats who have embraced (in Lieberman's case literally) Bushian leadership.

Guys like Marty Peretz are hard cases. It's going to be a good long while for them to "get it". But a few election races where the anti-Bush dynamic is demonstrated just might paint the more complicated mosiac of the countries mood for Marty so he can distinguish the difference between 2006 and 1968.

Also, still wonderin' if Hillary is paying attention.

Update: Great minds think alike. Digby writes Peretz a goodbye letter. Seeya. Wouldn't wanna beya.