Smearing to the Last Drop
Joe Lieberman is out there claiming Ned Lamont and "angry liberal bloggers" hacked his site with a Denial of Service attack. Kos did some digging and gets the real answer:
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 shitty service goes out.
I suspect this is a non-issue to the voters of Connecticut. But it's significant that the Lieberman campaign wanted another last chance to play the victim. Incidentally, the Lamont campaign offered to send a technician to help fix the problem, and put a Google cache of Joe's website up on their blog.
Classy vs. playing the victim.
UPDATE: Lieberman's campaign is now backpedaling furiously.
UPDATE 2: Dick Polman of my former home paper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, notes something significant:
The (Lieberman) campaign had assembled a list of 27 Lieberman criticisms of the Bush war effort, in an attempt to buttress his argument that he's not a lockstep Bush enabler. At first glance, it looked impressive -- hey, the guy did say all these things (Example: "The divisive and unilateral foreign policy that the Administration has followed has borne bitter fruit"). Could it therefore be true that everybody has read Joe wrong?
There was something wierd about the handout, but I couldn't figure out what it was. And then late in the day, when I was no longer absorbed in campaign events, when I was no longer peeking at the sheet while stuck at traffic lights, the obvious truth smacked me between the eyes. It was my Harry Bosch moment:
I circled the dates appended to each of the 27 "anti-Bush" remarks on the war. It turned out that 21 were uttered back in 2003.
This means, of course, that his campaign can't come up with hardly anything more recent. But, beyond that, ask yourself this question: Why was Lieberman seemingly so critical of Bush in that single year, 2003? Why, for instance, did he call for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's removal in October 2003, whereas we have hardly heard him say it since?
Again, the answer jumps out: Back then, Lieberman was eyeing a presidential bid, and he had to get himself more in sync with liberal Democratic voters.
Joe Lieberman - a reliable Democratic voice... whenever there's an election going on.