Why the Lieberman Website Story is Bullshit.

I'm watching MSNBC, and the guy from the Lieberman campaign is complaining that an alleged "hack" on their website is making it impossible for them to get their message to people who visit their site.

This is clearly bullshit. Here's why:

The Lieberman campaign has access to their server. Look what you get when you go to the lieberman homepage: http://www.joe2006.com



This proves that they now have access to their server. If they were genuinely concerned about getting their message out to people who visit their site, then they would put their old homepage back up. They haven't done that. Instead, they put up this BS "update".

BOTTOM LINE: The existence of this "update" page proves that the Lieberman campaign has access to their server, and they could put up anything they want.

UPDATE: THEY CHANGED IT BACK! The page now shows the "This account is under construction Please check back soon. It will be available shortly. Thank you." Fortunately, I have a screen capture:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/img/06/0808_lieber...

FTP should be working fine if they can upload their message....All they have to do is reload their index.htm file.

Lamont represents anti-Iraq war sentiment. The less they media reminds people of soldiers dying...the better LIEberman and pro war side does.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/img/06/0808_lieber...

You... you... COMMIE!

Joe must be desperate.

Thanks Skinner, and the rest of ya'll who are keeping tabs on this.

They are pulling out all the ploys today. It wreaks of total desperation but the shame is we know all too well that dirty tricks often times still work. So at the end of the day, hopefully the voters voices will be made heard that we want change.

aren't they? Dirty tricks, lies, innuendo and outright propaganda. All so "Holy" Joe can retain his seat at the right hand of george bush. I hope Lamont crushes him like the cockroach he is........ with "friends" like Joementum, who needs enemas?

... doesn't keep Ned from winning the Primary.

And then.... hopefully the State Attorney *will* followup on the issue -- and find that nothing was hacked, and that Lieberman's campaign was trying a dirty trick ... resulting in charges against Joementum staffers and the collapse of Joementum's plans for an Independent run.

(fingers crossed)

Unlike this amateur night stunt, GOP dirty tricks typically get results.

Joementum might win today, but it won't be because of the 3 people that decided to vote for him based on this nonsense.

Lieberman2006.com

That had the problem

Lieberman2006.com, I got this message:

There is no website configured at this address.

Verrry strange.

They are getting the message out that they WANT to get out though, aren't they?

info can be stovepiped to where it would get on the news?

I expected no less from Joe, after the last few weeks.

Sounds more like a page a web host would put up if the people renting space haven't paid their bill. That is what it looks like to me.

Maybe they have been hacked. Maybe they haven't.

Mark.

...

Rove soldiered on in obscurity until 1986, when he was working on the second campaign of Bill Clements, a Republican trying to recapture the governor's office after losing it to Democrat Mark White. Rove made news by going public with a complaint that an electronic bugging device had been found in his office--shortly before a scheduled televised debate between the two candidates. "We never took it seriously, because we knew nobody in our shop had anything to do with it," says Dwayne Hollman, who worked for White at the time. Hollman said it was assumed that it was a publicity stunt. "It was investigated by the FBI," Hollman said, "and nothing ever came of it."

Yet some wonder what "came of" Rove's meeting with FBI agent Greg Rampton, who conducted that investigation. Local authorities who looked into the bugging seem to agree with Hollman's assessment. "We were the first on the scene and concluded that Rove had hired a company to debug his office, and that the same company had planted the bug," says a source involved in the Travis County DA office's investigation. But the media reported that Rampton had determined there was nothing to pursue.

Two years later, Rampton began an investigation that involved his setting up shop in the offices of Garry Mauro, the state land commissioner and later the loser in the 1998 gubernatorial race won by George W. Bush. Mauro said Rampton informed him that a former Land Commission employee was involved in an appraisals scheme that involved the commission. "I told my general counsel to tell to come on in," Mauro said. Rampton accepted the invitation. "On the day of the Democratic state convention, I got a subpoena for every document you could possibly imagine," Mauro said.

...


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010305/dubose

DING!

...was my first thought, as well!

Truthiness is a satirical term coined by Stephen Colbert in reference to the quality
by which a person claims to know something intuitively, instinctively, or "from the gut"
without regard to evidence, logic, or intellectual examination.



By using the term as part of his satirical routine, Colbert sought to critique the tendency to rely upon "truthiness",
and its use as an appeal to emotion and tool of rhetoric in contemporary socio-political discourse.
He particularly applied it to President Bush's modus operandi in nominating
Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and in deciding to invade Iraq.

to DU just now! All the media can focus on right now are the very issues that they have REPEATEDLY ignored when done by the Republicans! I'm so infuriated by their obvious slant on 'the news'...why their current indignation when they failed repeatedly to report thousands of such Rovian tactics by Republicans in the past? The answer is HYPOCRISY. They are not 'bearers of the objective truth.'

No update for me.

When I tried to go there, it took about 20 seconds for the page to resolve, and it was a default "Page under construction" page

Pings @ joe2006.com are returning reasonably.

Edit: Learn to use quotes properly.

Skinner, I just want to kiss you!! :

"under construction" message again. However, about 5 minutes ago, I tried the link and got the same message you did. HOWEVER, I did note that when I got the "Attack on Lieberman" message, the original url, http://www.joe2006.com, changed to http://server1.myhostcamp.com/suspended.page /
Anyone have any idea what's going on???
k&r

Looks like they re-directed the website. But now it looks like they removed their accusation against Lamont that his people did it. Funny how the earlier screen capture off of someone's cache had the blatant propaganda in plain site with the redirect, and then subsequently removed it (quickly, I might add). This has Karl Rove's shit all over it.

This is just so unbelievably stupid and obvious. I wonder if Joe also believes that the Internets is a series of tubes, because he must think many of us are idiots to not catch this.

I also heard that the Lamont camp offered to send their people over and assist in fixing their site. They even said they could provide most of the information which they cached alread. Still no response from the Lieberman camp.

one stinks and reeks of deceit... I gotta tell ya, they work overtime, coming up with these schemes....

I saw the story last night and clicked and saw this message:

This account is under construction
Please check back soon. It will be available shortly. Thank you.

then a while later in the evening it was this:

Vote for who you know, Vote Joe
Please check back soon.

this morning I saw it because it was still on my screen and it was back to normal.

now I click on your link and I do not see the message you report seeing I see this again:

This account is under construction
Please check back soon. It will be available shortly. Thank you.

It appears that the sight may actually be getting attacked repeatedly.

But I smell bs.

haha...

I could hear a little boy whisper when I read your post... hehe.

Took control of the site? I'm not trying to defend Lieberman's campaign but it is possible.

At the moment this is what is displaying at the site:

"This account is under construction
Please check back soon. It will be available shortly. Thank you."

That is a template message for a suspended hosting account.

Did Joe forget to pay?

he didn't pay the bill.

But a friend of mine used a content managent program to run his website and it was attacked by hackers not only once but twice. Eventually the host provider suspended my friend's account until he was able to find a solution that was more safe than the program he was using for the website.

Something similar could be happening to Lieberman's website where they have to keep the account suspended until the security holes are fixed. I have no clue! I don't know what happened to the site since I haven't been paying attention to this story from the begining.

the Rove playbook from the get go...

and if anyone has any doubt at this point..and votes for the Rove stoolie Lie ber man...

then they get what they deserve!

if after almost 6 years of this same playbook of bullshit..the team doesn't get it..then they need to be retired from the field!
immediately!

this is a Rove blitz...and our team better wake up to the Rove media and the rove whore Joementum!

or get outta the way..a new team is coming..and we will wipe the scorebaord clean of them!.....


fly

instead they've interjected themself into the story by just repeating the Liberman campaign charges over and over. Plus did you hear Chris Jansing call Democrats the "anti-security party?" Karl Rove must have faxed that to her this a.m. and she's been witing for an opportunity to say that if Lamont wins...won't this be considered a vote for the "anti-security party."

I guess we can see what the November mid-terms are going to be...with the Media putting bogus stories out to try to interfere with the elections if the voting machines don't get us in some states the MSM will do it's best, as it as done in the past...but it will be Hell like we've never seen before.

First posted by LynzM:


Hi, I'm the developer of joe2006.com; I'd like to clear up a couple things:

the website has suffered from a variety of attacks, including two episodes of "de-facing" where a hacker identifying himself as "ThHacker" performed a code/SQL injection and replaced the index page. This current attack is at this time continuing to disrupt display of the site and email communications for Sen. Lieberman, his staff and volunteers doing their job on election day.

In the short-term here, you may find some dark form of glee - but consider this: If you have any appreciation for the way that the internet has opened communications and dialogue and expanded the reach of candidates of all stripes; this is a very, very dark day regardless of where you stand in this particular election.

I ask you to set-aside for a moment the personal hatred on display here and stand for protecting the electoral process and the promise of the expansion of democracy on the internet. Consider the fundamental change to politics on the internet if security, not reaching voters must now become the primary objective for the interactive component of any campaign.

I respectfully ask that you help spread the word, whether this attack is from an overzealous supporter of Mr. Lamont or whoever it is. I urge you to call for whoever this is to cease the attack and let the election unfold in the way that Connecticut's voters choose when they stand before the voting machines.

To "ThHacker" - you've made your point.
Dan Geary | 08.08.06 - 11:50 am | #

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/ctblogger/115504248010... /

I've been a web developer for 12 years and that's nothing but BS technobabble. If they replaced the html, fine.. Just say that, don't confuse everyone with bullshit terms that makes it sound more "serious" to MSM viewers.

SQL is a database query language and code is just code. So which is it Mr. Web developer? Give us the real details if you really know what you're talking about.

It takes advantage of poorly written html/sql. If there is a form that accepts user input which is treated as valid input, the possibilities are endless.

For a GOOD user, someone could simply type the name "Bob" into a form and click submit. Their resulting database call could be something like:

INSERT INTO Users VALUES ('Bob')

But a NAUGHTY user, might try something devious like the name "Fred') GO drop database GO". Which would trick their system into making multiple commands

INSERT INTO Users VALUES ('Fred') GO drop database GO

If you didn't figure it out already, "drop database" completely deletes the named database and brings websites to a halt. I'm not saying I trust that this actually happened, but it could have. And if it did happen, their programmers suck balls.

I guess I just don't have that hacker mindset any more. I gave it up back in 1985.

Luckily none of my sites build SQL queries via user input.

Thats why as a developer you can never trust any inputs from the users.
You have to treat all inputs as tainted, then process them character by character to make sure that they are reasonable for the values intended; ie. no sql injection code contained in the address field.

...how a hacker would manage to change the MX record in the zone file sufficient to screw up email.

Riddle me that.

Good question.

That their email is messed up. It might be, and this might really be a hack job, but I doubt it.

Knowing that a site was hacked, the host might want to cut off the entire account until things get straigtened out, to protect the other sites the host has.

Hi. I am the technology coordinator for the Lamont campaign. I am following the discussions across the internet about the problems with Sen. Lieberman's campaign website very closely, in part, because I have been very concerned that we might experience similar sort of attacks.

'SQL Injection' is a well known web attack. It is not BS technobabble.

Check out the Wikipedia definition.

The sort of screens that have been displayed over the past day are the sort of screens typical of a site that has been hacked in such a way that the hackers have taken over the site and it is using to much computing resources, or of a site that has exceeded bandwidth parameters either because of unexpected volume or a distributed denial of service attack.

Dan has asked that we condemn the alledged attack. I do not know if there is in fact some sort of attack, or if there is what sort of attack it is or who is behind it. However, I will take him at his word and ask that if anyone knows anything about attacks on Sen. Lieberman's site, that they do everything in their power to stop such attacks.

I joined Ned Lamont's campaign because I believe in the friendly arguement around the dinner table about politics and the direction our country is headed. I believe that in a fair discussion, Ned will come out head and shoulders above Sen. Lieberman.

Let's work together to bring about a fair and open dialog and a democracy that our country can be proud of.

I sincerely hope that corporate media outlets don't dump the blame for this mess on Lamont's campaign (whether it's self-inflicted ala Rovian technique, or some other disrupter)

... now, combine the ease with which a poorly designed site can be hacked with some of what the DUers have uncovered about joe2006.com's hosting: it was done on the dirt cheap, and I'd bet both the hosting company and alleged "webmaster" aren't exactly running the sort of software that precludes SQL or code/command injection attacks -- which means his campaign was not asking the right questions about their Web presence or Internet security in the first place.

Just another example of Joenertia inaction, if you ask me.

Any second grade webmaster should have protected against it.

I'm a web developer/designer...

I've had websites before that were attacked in this way, and what he mentions is valid, but my sites were unaffected, because if you just build your forms corretly in the first place, and do some just really basic coding to set them up, these kinds of attacks are completely and utterly useless. They run a few tries, nothing happens, they leave.

I've also had an entire web server hacked, which wasn't my finest hour. We had over 30 sites go down because someone got access to the server, the database, and just wreaked havoc, turned it into a spambox, wrecked all the sites...

We had them all back up running 100% within 4 hours. We brought up a new server, we created all the appropriate virtual servers and email users from our records. We re-uploaded all the sites from our code respository.

If it were one site they should have been able to have it up within a couple hours even if they had to start from scratch...well speaking as someone who has had this happen, and knows how to code...there are three options..

1) The web developer was lazy.
2) The web developer was incompetent.
3) It's being used for political purposes

Even if the webmaster is a complete dolt, he should be able to lock the database completely in minutes while he figures out how to disable the specific database commands that the hacker is posting (and all the other common problematic posts while he's at it).

So what's the excuse for the site being down now, 12 to 16 hours after problems first became evident? There is none other than the same "incompetence" that Lieberman keeps lauding in his idol, Bush.

I'm not ready to label this a political ploy simply because I've run into my fair share of 'webmasters' who are completely and utterly clueless and I have no idea how they get their jobs. A political organization like this would be RIPE to have some IT guy who doesn't know this stuff too well. Often they'll bring in an IT guy who knows phones top to bottom because they ahve so many volunteers calling they need him...but then the exchange server starts spouting flames and he is helpless.

Honestly when our server got attacked it was beyond repair. I didn't even bother locking anything. I just yanked the plug, so to speak, and disconnected it. I could tell it was utterly compromised down to the root level and knew there was no point risking anything. Who knows what was planted and hiding in some recessed corner.

In my opinion, you get attacked like this where you lose your security containment, you start fresh, and if you dont' have the code respository/ghosts/backups/whatever that would allow you to build your website from scratch in a matter of hours (or alot less depending on the size) then you're not worth your salt as an IT guy.

Actually....to put it bluntly, if I had all the necessary hardware, software, and backed up code and databases....I could BUILD a computer, INSTALL the server, UPLOAD the website, and get a brand new server, with the same old website, back up within that time...the longest parts would be waiting for installs to happen and if I had a basic server ghost that would be a snap.

That would include removing all the forms temporarily until the security issue was fixed.

12-16 hours and one site is still down? That's either insanely incompetent or it's gotta be political.

Like I said though, it could still go either way. I've known 'webmasters' who wouldn't have understood a word I just said, and I tried to dumb it down too...

My point was that a 10 second temporary fix to stop any future SQL hacks would be to make the database read only before going live while you install/write the scripts to protect your database that you should have in the first place.

And, yes, there are a lot of clueless webmasters out there, but SQL hacks are some of the very easiest hack to comprehend and protect against. And note that (if we are to believe the webmaster's account on this thread) this isn't the first time this happened:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

What other kind of access has that SQL hack gotten the guy. For all we know he used that and got root access to the entire server. Just making the database read only would be pointless if the hacker has that kind of control.

Plus it feels good to yank the cables from the back of the machine like you're saving someone's life.

They're only easy if you know what you're doing. I mean I've LITERALLY had to deal with in house IT people who I had to explain how DNS works in terms that a kid could understand because they just couldn't understand why I needed access to their domain names on Network Solutions.

"but we already own them"
"I know but I need to change what nameservers they point to."
"why?"
"because we're moving the site, and the I need to change where the domain names point to."
"yeah but we already own the domain names."

when I know it's not funny?

Of course, I agree that you should start from scratch -- including, of course, resetting all previous passwords.

I agree that you need to know what you are doing to do this quickly (or at all, really), but we are talking about a campaign that probably has an IT budget of hundreds of thousands at minumum.

It's just silly to think that they couldn't have found a competent Lieberman supporting volunteer, much less a paid consultant, to help them with their security issues on a month's notice.

I know multi-million dollar companies who have web budgets of under 1000 dollars and host their site on a cheapo virtual host. It makes no sense, but there are marketing managers who just don't understand. One person once asked me for a prospective budget, and I quoted out 1000 a month for a modest site, but with alot of database stuff going on, etc. and he thought there was a typo and I meant 100 a month. This from a company who had just built a brand new massive headquarters, hundreds of employees and huge budgets otherwise....but they just couldn't grasp the cost.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Lieberman campaign had a web budget of less than that, with the bulk of it going to ensure bandwidth. 400 a month maybe?

Sure the IT budget is probably huge, but the web component will get the short shaft 9 times out of 10, from what I've seen.

I agree with you. It's silly. Yet I've seen it happen time and again because people are cheap (not frugal...cheap) and grub onto every dime they can thinking that they can get away with it.

We all know how computer savvy she is.

Nice try though

Most developers know this.

Just google sql injection / code injections

http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/2005...
http://www.codeproject.com/aspnet/SqlInjection.asp#inje...
http://www.unixwiz.net/techtips/sql-injection.html

EDIT: never mind, didn't saw previous responses

Although I knew about the method and guard against it on my sites.

All you do is write a script to filter out/disable all the dangerous combinations of symbols before you execute any user input in an SQL command.

Alternatively, if/when your website's user interface encounters a dangerous combination of user inputted characters, you simply erase the input and ask the user to resubmit whatever text he/she was trying to post.

Might leave its imprint as ThHacker? Doubt its the individual who did the hacking.

have the attorney general all over this??
or computer wizzes make his computers anti hackable??

kerry had paid people in fla in our campaign headqurters specifically there to maintain the computers..and to make sure they weren't hacked..they watched over them constantly!

this is total bullshit!!

rove rove rove rove rove rove rove rove rove rove!! we see your fingerprints!!!!!!!!!!

fly

KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE DOING!! Using Micro$hit tools and writing scripts is not development.

Do you imagine for one moment that every hi-profile website isn't going to come under attack? Amazon.com is under constant daily attack from thousands of would-be hackers (really just script kiddies) trying to make a name in the underworld, yet somehow they can miraculously stay up and running day after day, year after year. They have been successfully hacked in the past and they developed strategies and techniques to secure it. These methods are generally known and are made available to anyone that is interested.

Ironically, one of the reasons there are so many unsecured sites out there is because of Lieberman's (and Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, and the rest of the Democratic Wing of The Corporate Party) support in destroying the engine that brought the relative prosperity of the 90's.

Just guessing of course but it seems odd that the "developer" (as if there's just one) would have such an eloquent and political statement ready just for this. Also it implies that it's so sad that they have to worry about security because of these new bad apples when anyone worth anything in IT is always concerned with security.

Seems so fishy. Desperate and pathetic.

technical help. Either way, Joe stinks.

grammar school hacker.

I saw this story briefly on the FOX crawl at the YMCA gym this morning, and I immediately thought of Rove.

Why would Lamont bother to take down Lieberman's website? What the hell good would that do him?

But it fits right into their "mean bloggers being unfair to widdle Joey" routine.

But assuming much of Lamont's support is technocrati-driven, since internet-savy people are more likely to have access to more information, wouldn't those same people all immediately smell a rat here? The people who are most likely to fall for this would be the people stupid enough to be supporting Lieberman already/still.

And the way the "news" stations have all pounced on it so quickly is a little suspicious too. Were they tipped off to be ready to report on a story about Lamont's dirty tricks?

and how about pissy pants letting us know if he spied on the Kerry campaign??

this is bullshit..its more of the ..opposites..what ever they say they do and mean the opposite..or whatever sick play they make they turn it and accuse others of their dirty deeds..

more rove bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

fly

The attempted smear amounts to the same.

They're demanding Lamont acknowledge and denounce an attack no one knows actually took place, much less if Lamont was a part of it. I don't know that the Lieberman campaign didn't screw with their own website for purposes of claiming someone else did it.

By labeling it an attack by "our political opponents", Lieberman's people are hoping to cast a wide enough net so as to safely say they never accused Lamont - while doing just that. (as Lamont is a political opponent)

They can also claim they meant the net activists that have been maligned by Lieberman's campaign and not Lamont.

It's an accusation meant to cast doubt(smear) and at the same time have an out for those doing the accusing.

Someone needs to tell Joe that victims don't do well in American society. Oh Joe, where's that momentum?

I'm seeing exit polls that don't match vote counts. We'll see...

None.

1. They would get caught via server logs
2. It went down only 24 hours before the primary
3. The result is a negative (as is being proven all over the MSM as I type)

http://www.theplanet.com
That is the shop that is hosting Joe's website.

(Via reverse dns lookup of 69.56.129.130, which is www.joe2006.com's ip address).

Do you think THEY could confirm if a site has been "hacked" or not?

Or maybe, they could confirm non-payment of funds?
i.e.,
(see at link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nedlamont/209549380 / )

Domain Name: JOE2006.COM
Registrar: BULKREGISTER, LLC.
Whois Server: whois.bulkregister.com
Referral URL: http://www.bulkregister.com
Name Server: NS2.THEPLANET.COM
Name Server: NS1.THEPLANET.COM
Status: ACTIVE
EPP Status: ok
Updated Date: 14-Jun-2006
Creation Date: 23-Jun-2002
Expiration Date: 23-Jun-2007


Note: Creation date, a 5 year domain registration. I would assume they PAID for 5 years at that time. I doubt they didn't pay their bill ... at least for domain registration. I suppose the Web Host bill may have come due though

Way to go, Skinner. We need to call the talk shows if they don't hear about this. This has Rove written all over it.

They have a statement about the web site there.

They think that they haven't paid their bill! It looks just like a page I would put up if I were hosting someone for a fee and they hadn't paid their bill.

Mark.

vote for him because his website was hacked? If hackers are able to take the site down, or make changes to it, the server is configured wrong, and somebody needs to take a look at it. It should not be that hard to keep the hackers out, once they determine how they're gaining access.

And yes, the fact that the message on the main page can be changed by Joe's people indicates they have access to their server, and can update it. They need to change some configurations and the password, and it should be secure again.

But I'm still not buying the story, I think KKKarl Rove must be advising them at this point. Desperation creates desperate acts.

this will be used to justify the discrepancies between their exit poll data and the final vote outcome!

of all the revised versions too?

This is too funny.

Joe Desperation.

She was out sick yesterday, hopefully she'll be back today.

caught me hacking my own website.



Maybe I should have had a V8 instead?

One of the Liebereman spokesliars was on TV earlier claiming it was a Denial of Service attack. Bullshit. If it was a DOS attack, it would be difficult or impossible to connect to the site at all, but those who did connect would see the normal site, not "this site unavailable" or "down for maintenance" or "vote for the horror you know, vote for joe" or whatever it is at the moment.

Right now, I'm sure a lot of people are finding it difficult or impossible to connect to the site, but that isn't a DOS attack - that's the result of the overload of traffic you get when you're on every news program in the country whining about your website.

Besides AA

directed at their website because they THINK it is the rotten no good bloggers that have caused ALL of Joe's problems - so what better scheme than to claim their website has been attacked naturally by one of those nasty ass bloggers.....

It would have been idiotic for the Lamont people to pull such a stunt, and desperate times can bring out the bottom line worst in people...

http://nedlamont.com/blog/978/desperation

I'll wait for developments.

Is Lieberman being funded by republicans? Because this smells an awfully lot like Rove.

out, that they are shit out of luck and they are probably better off to keep their message a secret.

I wish I'd done screen shots, darn it. I happened to have nothing else to do but mess around on the computer today, and I saw at least four different displays at various times during the morning. I"m no expert, but that sure doesn't seem indicative of a hack to me. Obviously they can change *something* on the site.

It would be interesting to see them

stupid MSM doesn't know the right questions to ask, does it??

He would do a piece on it, I know he would!!

MSNBC_Olbermann_NewsMail@MSNBC.COM

and

countdown@msnbc.com

NGU.

Stay tuned

I just didn't want to horn in if Skinner wanted to do it himself. After all, he discovered this, so it's his find.

NGU.

Is anyone sending this to the cable news stations? I just heard Franken on AAR talking about a hack from Lamont supporters. They're buying into this too! We need to get the word out.

His theory is that the campaign simply failed to pay their bills for the host.

See the bottom of this diary on DKos:
phttp://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/8/124621/2122 ]

(snip)
What's more, check out the URL that joe2006.com resolves to:



server1.myhostcamp.com/suspended.page/



"Suspended". Accounts are generally suspended for one of two reasons: 1) inappropriate or illegal content (which we can obviously rule out in this case), or 2) from lack of payment. And that would make sense given that the first screen when Lieberman's site went down was, indeed, a request that the website owner contact their billing department:

(end of snip)

cause those mean bloggers hate poor Joe

If they are faking this, it is truly pathetic.

GEAUX SKINNER!!!!

Hartmann, Stephanie Miller, Al Franken, Bernie Ward, and a few other Radio Gods.

"This image removed due to high-bandwidth usage."

ImageShack^(R)

Lamont needs to make a statement...

How dare the Lieberman campaign attack the honor and credibility of his staff. WE would never tolerate this type of behavior. Period.

There's a thread on GD about it now.

They denounced a hack--if that happened--and absolutely denied having anything to do with his site.

Thanks for cluing me in.

his run as an independent. That's what this does.

It makes this silly primary election illegitimate, and convinces people that the REAL election doesn't come until in November.

Not gonna work.