Hacking Charge: Was The Lieberman Camp Web-Clueless To The End?

by Paul Bass | August 8, 2006 8:08 PM | | Comments (4)

The press story on the final day of the Lieberman-Lamont Democratic primary campaign may prove to be a symbol for dogged U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman’s camp from the start: cluelessness about the web.

As voters streamed to the polls in unusually high numbers Tuesday for Connecticut’s Senate Democratic primary, the Lieberman camp at first accused rival Ned Lamont’s web-savvy campaign of hacking its web site. The Lieberman campaign web site was down all day.

Lamont’s campaign and sympathetic bloggers raced to work trying to figure out why Lieberman’s site was down, since the Lieberman camp itself had no explanation.

By the time the polls closed, Lamont’s top staff blogger, Tim Tagaris (in top photo, shown at Lamont’s primary night headquarters in Meriden), reported that the Lieberman camp had messed up in how it set up its site. The site couldn’t handle the increased election day traffic.

“They use a shared server with 72 other sites. They pay their server $15 a month for 10 gigabytes. We’ve gone through more than 10 gigabytes in the last 24 hours,” Tagaris reported. The Lamont campaign pays $1,500 a month for web service.

“There have been thousands of people doing research in real time on our side to beat this back,” Tagaris said. “We had no access to their IP info. They didn’t know what happened.”

By day’s end, the Lieberman camp backed off direct accusations that Lamont had tampered with its site. Click here for more.

The Lamont campaign grew out of an effort by both local and national bloggers to field a challenger to Lieberman because of his outspoken support of the Iraq War and his support of the Republican Bush administration on issues like the nomination of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. Bloggers raised thousands of dollars and drew thousands of volunteers to the Lamont campaign, and produced independent videos and other material that boosted Lamont’s chances.

Meanwhile, the Lamont campaign had separate rooms and Internet access available for mainstream media and bloggers at the Four Points Sheraton in Meriden. But even there, wireless access has been fading in and out. Why? The demand. “Half the bloggers in the world are here,” remarked on Lamont staffer, throwing his arms in the air.







Share this story

Share |

Comments

Posted by: Hans Blix | August 8, 2006 11:29 PM

Lieberman's accusation of sabotage is a page out of George Bush's playbook. Blame the problems in IRAQ on the Iraqis. Had BUSH not invaded IRAQ , there wouldnt be any problems. So who's to blame? BUSH's the biggest war criminal in the 21st century. Liebermann is his lap dog and Spy within the democratic party.

Posted by: mary | August 8, 2006 11:32 PM

Obviously, the cyber-problem was cooked up by the Lieberman camp in case he lost by a large number of votes so he could justify running as an independent.

What a selfish smug little narcissist. He lost a primary fair and square, and now the little whiner has to go back for another bite. And he accuses Democrats opposed to the war of being the divisive force. Hasn't anybody ever explained to him after 18 years in the senate that he is supposed to REPRESENT his constituents? His "voting his conscience" excuse is ridiculous, especially since his "conscience" seems to take advice from a whole roster of lobbyists, including his own wife.

Why haven't any of the reporters (as far as I know) ever asked him if he supports the HUGE expensive military bases we are building in Iraq, and (if he does) how he reconciles this with the excuse that we invaded to bring *democracy* to the Iraqis?

Posted by: Dave | August 9, 2006 10:34 PM

"Had BUSH not invaded IRAQ , there wouldnt be any problems."



So, if what happened on 9/11 or the other terrorist bombings (long before the Iraq war) were not "problems", then what the hell were they?



Let's review the chain of events (starting at 9/11 for brevity):

1) Terrorist attacks on 9/11

2) US responds by sending troops to Afghanistan, which successfully disrupts the Al-Qaeda/Taliban stronghold

3) Impending threat of Saddam, combined with Iraqi links to Al-Qaeda prompts US to send troops to Iraq (Need I remind you of the Gulf War? Saddam was always a threat and always wanted WMDs no matter if they are ever found or not)



So, what you’re saying is that if Bush didn't invade Iraq then 9/11 wouldn't have happened, or that Iraq would not have invaded Kuwait? It is utter nonsense to claim that Arabs hate America because we did something to them. They have wanted to kill Americans long before the average American even knew words like Taliban or Al-Qaeda. Despite what some may claim, there is a "moral" obligation to fight the "infidels" if you are a Muslim.



It's no wonder the educational system in America is under fire with your kind of logic out there.

Posted by: steve | August 11, 2006 10:57 AM

Dave, you silly sheep.

Your timeline's veracity ends after 9/11. We sucessfully disrupted the Taliban but have yet to defeat them, lagrely because we took our eye off the ball by invading Iraq.

Then you go way off the Bush-KoolAid deep end by claiming that Saddam was an "impending threat" when he was not at all and repeating the Bush lies about Iraqi links to Al-Qaeda (dismissed in the 9/11 Commission report)

As for them wanting to kill us back when we were even more ignorant of them, you may want to look a bit further into post-colial developments in the Middle East before declaring our hands so wonderfully clean.

Sorry, Comments are closed for this entry

Sections

Neighborhood News

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

Buy New Haven Independent Stuff

News Feed

Powered by
Movable Type 3.35