Libermans website and email get hacked

[daniel49]

Some overenthusiastic Lamont supporters, I would suspect.
Although I doubt Lamont had anything to do with it.
Want to get that antiwar canidate in at any cost.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14245779/

 

[lozina]

Probably Lierberman's team in a last ditch effort to try and dredge up some sympathy

It's funny how everytime I hear or read in the news about these two candidates it's always just "Joseph Lieberman" or maybe Senator in front but then when they mention Lamont they prefix his name with adjectives like "multi-millionaire".

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: lozina
Probably Lierberman's team in a last ditch effort to try and dredge up some sympathy

It's funny how everytime I hear or read in the news about these two candidates it's always just "Joseph Lieberman" or maybe Senator in front but then when they mention Lamont they prefix his name with adjectives like "multi-millionaire".

meh thier both democrats

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: lozina
Probably Lierberman's team in a last ditch effort to try and dredge up some sympathy

It's funny how everytime I hear or read in the news about these two candidates it's always just "Joseph Lieberman" or maybe Senator in front but then when they mention Lamont they prefix his name with adjectives like "multi-millionaire".

meh thier both democrats

You think the Republicans have the market cornered in Dirty Politics?

 

[SViscusi]

There is nothing more pathetic than a politician who feels he's entitled to his seat and then finds himself in a tough primary fight.

 

[jpeyton]

We don't need lapdogs like Lieberman in the Democratic party. I sincerely hope Lamont wins the primary and sends a message to other lapdog senators.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
We don't need lapdogs like Lieberman in the Democratic party. I sincerely hope Lamont wins the primary and sends a message to other lapdog senators.

Who is a lapdog, those who follow party mantra? Lieberman most obviously does not, so perhaps you could clarify that.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: jpeyton
We don't need lapdogs like Lieberman in the Democratic party. I sincerely hope Lamont wins the primary and sends a message to other lapdog senators.

Who is a lapdog, those who follow party mantra? Lieberman most obviously does not, so perhaps you could clarify that.

Lieberman follows the Republican party mantra.

 

[Termagant]

If I had to guess I would say it is someone opposed to Lieberman's views on censorship of media and video games.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Or his view on the war in Iraq or tax cuts for the wealthy, etc...

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: jpeyton
We don't need lapdogs like Lieberman in the Democratic party. I sincerely hope Lamont wins the primary and sends a message to other lapdog senators.

Who is a lapdog, those who follow party mantra? Lieberman most obviously does not, so perhaps you could clarify that.

Lieberman follows the Republican party mantra.

The only thing Hol(e)y Joe is worried about is himself or the wet kisses he gets from King Georgie. Somewhere along the line he forgot about the people he's supposed to represent.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: daniel49
Some overenthusiastic Lamont supporters, I would suspect.
Although I doubt Lamont had anything to do with it.
Want to get that antiwar canidate in at any cost.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14245779/

Wow, you jumped on this BS without proof pretty fast. This story has been ongoing far before the MSNBC blurb, maybe you should add some more links, ones that have zero to do with hacking and conspiracies.

Two posts down it's clear that Lieberman's website isn't suffering from a Denial of Service attack.

But now I have the definitive answer as to why Lieberman's site went down.

They are paying $15/month for hosting at a place called MyHostCamp, with a bandwidth limit of 10GB. MyHostCamp is currently down, along with all their clients.

Here's the deal -- you get what you pay for. My hosting bill is now over $7K per month. A smaller site doesn't need that much bandwidth, but if you're paying $15 because your $12 million campaign is too freakin' cheap to pay for quality hosting, then don't go blaming your opponent when your ****** service goes out.

For their part, the Lamont campaign has offered its technical expertise to get Lieberman's site back up (which could be done in an hour by a competent sysadmin), and has added a link to the googlecached version of Lieberman's site at the top of their blog.

One side is acting mature, the other is running around making baseless accusations.

Update: Dan Gerstein, Lieberman spokesperson, admits they have no evidence Lamont's campaign or his supporters are behind their website woes.

I'm telling you, it's down because they were too cheap to pay for quality hosting. That's a lesson to all of you campaigns skimping on hosting. $15 won't cut it.

Update II: Joe's site shares one server with 73 other sites. They pay $15/month for an overcrowded server, and then they blame others when it goes down? Full list of sites on Joe's server on the flip.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/8/153827/3493

 

[Lemon law]

By tomorrow we will know if Lieberman will get the party nod to retain his seat or not. But if he loses the primary his only role can be that of a spoiler.---and will be finsished as a democrat if he runs independent.

But another Lesson is clear---in 08 the democrats can't nominate a Presidential candidate that voted for the Iraq war. Some one who was not in the house or senate then
would be acceptable---as would be someone who cast a vote of courage and vision to oppose this ill fated occupation. But if they were so unvisionary to not see that this war was
a crock of lies before it started---we don't need more idiots with no vision---sorry about that Hillary. Ya bet on the wrong horse.---and you are not the lone ranger that will be standing on the sidelines.

But Lieberman has made a fool out of himself---and will likely pay the price of outragious pandering.---I have a feeling that 06 will see alot more rascals being thrown out.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: jpeyton
We don't need lapdogs like Lieberman in the Democratic party. I sincerely hope Lamont wins the primary and sends a message to other lapdog senators.

Who is a lapdog, those who follow party mantra? Lieberman most obviously does not, so perhaps you could clarify that.

Lieberman follows the Republican party mantra.

no he doesn't. He supported that craptastic Kyoto treaty. That is not a right wing lapdog.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: jpeyton
We don't need lapdogs like Lieberman in the Democratic party. I sincerely hope Lamont wins the primary and sends a message to other lapdog senators.

Who is a lapdog, those who follow party mantra? Lieberman most obviously does not, so perhaps you could clarify that.

Lieberman follows the Republican party mantra.

no he doesn't. He supported that craptastic Kyoto treaty. That is not a right wing lapdog.

Kyoto isn't on the top of voter's agendas, so my statement stands.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: jpeyton
We don't need lapdogs like Lieberman in the Democratic party. I sincerely hope Lamont wins the primary and sends a message to other lapdog senators.

Who is a lapdog, those who follow party mantra? Lieberman most obviously does not, so perhaps you could clarify that.

Lieberman follows the Republican party mantra.

no he doesn't. He supported that craptastic Kyoto treaty. That is not a right wing lapdog.

Don't worry he made up for it by supporting Socialy Security privatization and was for limiting access to the morning after pill for rape victims.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: daniel49
Some overenthusiastic Lamont supporters, I would suspect.
Although I doubt Lamont had anything to do with it.
Want to get that antiwar canidate in at any cost.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14245779/

Wow, you jumped on this BS without proof pretty fast. This story has been ongoing far before the MSNBC blurb, maybe you should add some more links, ones that have zero to do with hacking and conspiracies.

Two posts down it's clear that Lieberman's website isn't suffering from a Denial of Service attack.

But now I have the definitive answer as to why Lieberman's site went down.

They are paying $15/month for hosting at a place called MyHostCamp, with a bandwidth limit of 10GB. MyHostCamp is currently down, along with all their clients.

Here's the deal -- you get what you pay for. My hosting bill is now over $7K per month. A smaller site doesn't need that much bandwidth, but if you're paying $15 because your $12 million campaign is too freakin' cheap to pay for quality hosting, then don't go blaming your opponent when your ****** service goes out.

For their part, the Lamont campaign has offered its technical expertise to get Lieberman's site back up (which could be done in an hour by a competent sysadmin), and has added a link to the googlecached version of Lieberman's site at the top of their blog.

One side is acting mature, the other is running around making baseless accusations.

Update: Dan Gerstein, Lieberman spokesperson, admits they have no evidence Lamont's campaign or his supporters are behind their website woes.

I'm telling you, it's down because they were too cheap to pay for quality hosting. That's a lesson to all of you campaigns skimping on hosting. $15 won't cut it.

Update II: Joe's site shares one server with 73 other sites. They pay $15/month for an overcrowded server, and then they blame others when it goes down? Full list of sites on Joe's server on the flip.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/8/153827/3493

Then they came for the last centrist Democrat, but I was not a centrist democrat...or something like that??

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Don't worry he made up for it by supporting Socialy Security privatization and was for limiting access to the morning after pill for rape victims.

Not to mention he was along for the ride as Bill Frist and the Bushes shamelessly exploited the Terri Schiavo case for political gain.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
By tomorrow we will know if Lieberman will get the party nod to retain his seat or not. But if he loses the primary his only role can be that of a spoiler.---and will be finsished as a democrat if he runs independent.

But another Lesson is clear---in 08 the democrats can't nominate a Presidential candidate that voted for the Iraq war. Some one who was not in the house or senate then
would be acceptable---as would be someone who cast a vote of courage and vision to oppose this ill fated occupation. But if they were so unvisionary to not see that this war was
a crock of lies before it started---we don't need more idiots with no vision---sorry about that Hillary. Ya bet on the wrong horse.---and you are not the lone ranger that will be standing on the sidelines.

But Lieberman has made a fool out of himself---and will likely pay the price of outragious pandering.---I have a feeling that 06 will see alot more rascals being thrown out.

Sounds like you're nominating either Gore or Feingold.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: daniel49
Some overenthusiastic Lamont supporters, I would suspect.
Although I doubt Lamont had anything to do with it.
Want to get that antiwar canidate in at any cost.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14245779/

Wow, you jumped on this BS without proof pretty fast. This story has been ongoing far before the MSNBC blurb, maybe you should add some more links, ones that have zero to do with hacking and conspiracies.

Two posts down it's clear that Lieberman's website isn't suffering from a Denial of Service attack.

But now I have the definitive answer as to why Lieberman's site went down.

They are paying $15/month for hosting at a place called MyHostCamp, with a bandwidth limit of 10GB. MyHostCamp is currently down, along with all their clients.

Here's the deal -- you get what you pay for. My hosting bill is now over $7K per month. A smaller site doesn't need that much bandwidth, but if you're paying $15 because your $12 million campaign is too freakin' cheap to pay for quality hosting, then don't go blaming your opponent when your ****** service goes out.

For their part, the Lamont campaign has offered its technical expertise to get Lieberman's site back up (which could be done in an hour by a competent sysadmin), and has added a link to the googlecached version of Lieberman's site at the top of their blog.

One side is acting mature, the other is running around making baseless accusations.

Update: Dan Gerstein, Lieberman spokesperson, admits they have no evidence Lamont's campaign or his supporters are behind their website woes.

I'm telling you, it's down because they were too cheap to pay for quality hosting. That's a lesson to all of you campaigns skimping on hosting. $15 won't cut it.

Update II: Joe's site shares one server with 73 other sites. They pay $15/month for an overcrowded server, and then they blame others when it goes down? Full list of sites on Joe's server on the flip.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/8/153827/3493

Then they came for the last centrist Democrat, but I was not a centrist democrat...or something like that??

If that was the case explain how both Nelsons, Bill and Ben have no primary challengers and are hardly if ever criticized for their positions. Not to mention the support for conservative Democrats Mark Warner, Ken Salazar and Paul Hackett just to name a few.

The only thing Democrats want at this point if people who will fight for and support their party and not provide cover for Republicans which Lieberman has done time in again to the the detriment of everyone but him. Now Republicans on the other hand, well just ask Arlen Spector about two years ago or Lincoln Chafee this year about how much centrist Republicans are supported.

 

[Dissipate]

Bwahahaha, bravo.

 

[Aegeon]

While its still early, Lieberman is getting crushed in the results so far. With 14.17% of the votes counted, its 57.79% of the votes for Lamont and 42.21% of the votes for Lieberman.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elec...08.html?SITE=CTHARELN&SECTION=POLITICS

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

The margin is shrinking, but it's still not close:

189 of 748 Precincts Reporting - 25.27%
Name Party Votes Pct
Lamont, Ned Dem 40,934 55.09
Lieberman, Joe (i) Dem 33,375 44.91

 

[DealMonkey]

If he just didn't kiss Bush! Oi vei! All hacking aside, you don't beat the Republicans by selling yourself as "Republican Light."

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Margin tightening - come on, Ned!

376 of 748 Precincts Reporting - 50.27%
Name Party Votes Pct
Lamont, Ned Dem 70,444 52.13
Lieberman, Joe (i) Dem 64,700 47.87