Eric Alterman opened his Media Matters column with this passage, which takes a cheap shot at Time magazine:

William E. Odom, a retired Army lieutenant general, was head of Army intelligence and director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, has the best short explanation of where we stand in Iraq today, read it here, then just for fun, read in our Self-Parody Department: William Kristol said Barack Obama wants to appease terrorists like pro-slavery politician Stephen Douglas tried to appease slave-owners. Kristol said, “Obama’s speech is a ‘can’t we get along’ speech — sort of the opposite of Lincoln. He would have been with Stephen Douglas in 1858.” Here. Shouldn’t all of Kristol’s comments come with a warning: “Notice: This man’s predictions have helped cause the death of hundreds of thousands of people, the wasting of a trillion dollars, torture, the inspiration of who knows how many terrorists and the hatred of the United States the world over, and yet he continues to attack the intelligence, integrity and patriotism of those who were correct.”

(And shouldn’t David Duke have a column in Time as well, just to give the magazine some intellectual consistency?)

Alterman has repeatedly slammed Time for its lineup of columnists (including Kristol), which he correctly says skews conservative. But what does David Duke have to do with Time or Kristol? This certainly looks like an ugly smear. Is Alterman likening Kristol to Duke? All conservatives?