Joe Lieberman will run in the general.

[samclemens]

Unless you're seeing the internal polls, that 54-41 13 point Lamont lead was the worst poll for Joe that I've seen.

 

The most recent Q-Poll, from this morning, is 51-45 in favor of Lamont.

 

And that article you posted...well, the phrase "Fish in a barrel" comes to mind.

Vs.

2005 and

 

im not picking sides or anything, im just giving lieberman his fair shake. he made the statements that are relevant to the subject matter here, so i thought they were worth posting.

 

interesting, though, i didnt know these are the worst #s for lieberman yet. i swear i remember seeing way worse #s for him but i must be wrong.

[juddling]

2005[/url] and

 

QUOTE

It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril.

Do you have a problem with that statement? That is probably the most level-headed thing a politician has said this decade.

[Balta1701]

Do you have a problem with that statement? That is probably the most level-headed thing a politician has said this decade.

That one shouldn't criticise a president in any way during a time of war, no matter what the President does, because the nation can't afford it? That sure doesn't sound level-headed to me.

 

Oh, and Joe Lieberman of 2003-2004 sure would have had a problem with it. At least when he was running for the Democratic nomination, and felt perfectly ok in criticising the President and undermining his credibility.

 

In our democracy, a president does not rule, he governs. He remains always answerable to us, the people. And right now, the president’s conduct of our foreign policy is giving the country too many reasons to question his leadership. It’s not just about 16 words in a speech, it is about distorting intelligence and diminishing credibility. It’s not about searching for scapegoats; it’s about seeing, as President Kennedy did after the Bay of Pigs, that presidents stand tall when they willingly accept responsibility for mistakes made while they are in charge. [Press Conference with Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) Re: War in Iraq, 7/28/03]

Edited August 7, 2006 by Balta1701

[Rex Kickass]

Do you have a problem with that statement? That is probably the most level-headed thing a politician has said this decade.

 

Legitimate dissent undermines no policy.

[kapkomet]

Legitimate dissent undermines no policy.

Right, that's true, but how much of all of this is 'legitimate dissent'? Most of it is posturing for camera time, and that's pure bulls***.

[Rex Kickass]

If "posturing for camera time" undermines your policy, it'd have to be pretty piss poor policy.

[samclemens]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/08/D8JCCCIO0.html

 

Lieberman accuses Lamont's supporters of hacking his site

[Balta1701]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/08/D8JCCCIO0.html

 

Lieberman accuses Lamont's supporters of hacking his site

So, a lot of the angry liberal bloggers aren't sure they buy Lieberman's excuse. The Lamont camp at least tried to suggest that it was because Lieberman's people hadn't paid their bills, which would actually seem to make more sense than a DOS attack given how their page was responding, but the Lieberman people seem to have produced evidence that they had in fact paid in full.

 

So, the Lieberman people are reportedly going to file/have filed a complaint with the U.S. Attorney's office, we'll see what happens. Hopefully no one actually decided to actually launch this sort of attack on Lieberman's site, and if they did, hopefully they wind up in prison. It is at least possible at this point that it wasn't a real DOS attack, but that their page was hammered with normal election day traffic that they didn't expect, i.e. Soxtalk when something big happens, and they just couldn't handle it. It has happened to more than a few pages I've read in the past. But if it was a real DOS attack, then it shouldn't have taken them nearly a full day to get the page back up and running, that's one thing I think I've gotten from all this; it should have taken a few hours at most.

 

The Lamont campaign also rapidly offered help from their computer guys to the Lieberman campaign. They didn't want it.

 

Update: Statement from the Connecticut Attorney General's office:

“I have received a complaint from Sen. Lieberman’s campaign asking my office to investigate the hacking of his campaign web site. I will investigate potential violations of anti-hacking provisions of our state computer crimes laws that are specifically within my jurisdiction. I will also work with the State Elections Enforcement Commission, and state and federal criminal authorities concerning possible violations of state election statutes, and federal election protections and other laws. We will seek civil and criminal penalties, where appropriate.”

 

Update the next: The Lieberman advisor who is all over in these reports talking about this alleged hacking has admitted that they have no evidence that the Lamont campaign is behind any attack, But they want Lamont to ask whoever's doing it to stop anyway. Linky.

 

Kos still thinks its all because the Lieberman camp is paying about $15 a month for internet hosting.

 

Update the next: the Lamont campaign has put a link to the Cache of Lieberman's page on their web site. Interesting that the Lieberman campaign didn't think of that. The Lamont campaign has also issued the statement the Lieberman campaign asked for, disavowing any attack and asking anyone who is responsible to stop.

 

Yet another edit (you can tell this one actually interests me:) Even National Review is now saying that they don't think it was a hacking, but merely an overloading of bandwith brought on by election day and a bunch of links (including Drudge).

 

Thus far, CNN, Fox, The NYT, and the AP have all managed to report this story without noting the possibility that it was a bandwith problem, and have likewise reported this story without noting that the Lieberman campaign has no evidence that Lamont supporters were behind any attack, if one actually happened.

 

MSNBC, however, seems on top of their game, and is all over the potential "bandwith overload" angle. They even note that the company hosting the page would be quite small, and that the other pages hosted by that same company are also down.

 

Next update, from Kos: they've tracked down more about the company that does the hosting. As far as they can tell, the Lieberman campaign just sent some money to a company and said "host this", and that company went and bought the cheapest web space it could find to host the site, thus maximizing profits.

 

Also, they and a couple of other pages are now running with the possibility that Lieberman's email is still up and running, and has been all day, despite some assertions to the contrary.

Edited August 8, 2006 by Balta1701

[Balta1701]

U.S. Senate - - Dem Primary

332 of 748 Precincts Reporting - 44.39%

Name Party Votes Pct

Lamont, Ned Dem 64,383 53.09

Lieberman, Joe (i) Dem 56,891 46.91

[KipWellsFan]

Lamont 51.76%

Liberman 48.24%

 

76.87% reporting

 

numbers steadying over the last couple updates

[Balta1701]

Dang, closer than I'd hoped. Might be enough to convince Joe to stay in as an Indep. Unless his campaign gets charged with filing a false police report over today.

[KipWellsFan]

Did they file a police report over the website thing?

[mr_genius]

But if it was a real DOS attack, then it shouldn't have taken them nearly a full day to get the page back up and running, that's one thing I think I've gotten from all this; it should have taken a few hours at most.

 

 

actually, that's not accurate. it matters how sophisticated the DoS attack was.

 

edit: that is, of course, if it even was a DoS or an attack of any type.

Edited August 9, 2006 by mr_genius

[kapkomet]

It's over, Joey conceded. IMO, he just needs to bow out now.

[mr_genius]

It's over, Joey conceded. IMO, he just needs to bow out now.

 

 

he won't

 

he thinks he can win the general election and he might be right.

[Balta1701]

Did they file a police report over the website thing?

Does filing a complaint with the Conn. Attorney General count?

[Cerbaho-WG]

http://imagesocket.com/view/nedlbac.JPG

 

Suck it, Joe.

Edited August 9, 2006 by Cerbaho-WG

[Balta1701]

So, according to TPMmedia...the FBI has also started looking into the potential hacking case. The website manager for the campaign has reportedly said that the FBI has asked for all of their files related to the potential hacking. Supposedly they were paying for more bandwith than what Kos and others suggested earlier in the day, and were not involved with the companies that they had invoices with (possibly those were contracts from earlier in the year.) They also claim they have protection against Denial of Service attacks at those pages. The guy running Lieberman's web page still claims the page was hacked, but, and I quote:

 

but declined to say what kind of attack he believes had been used.

 

"We're still trying to figure out where it came from," Hubbell said. "That's what we're investigating. . . I can't clearly say at this point."

[Rex Kickass]

The turnout was amazingly high for a summer primary - so the excuse that it wasn't the people of Connecticut speaking for the party is kinda squelched.

 

Like 400,000 votes or something.

 

Senators Bayh and Clinton, who both supported Joementum in the Primary, both have come out in support of Ned Lamont in the general.

[minors]

The turnout was amazingly high for a summer primary - so the excuse that it wasn't the people of Connecticut speaking for the party is kinda squelched.

 

Like 400,000 votes or something.

 

Senators Bayh and Clinton, who both supported Joementum in the Primary, both have come out in support of Ned Lamont in the general.

 

Good lets hope they battle it out and the Republican sneaks in and pulls the upset. Now why do these senators now support Lamont now instead of Liberman? Why can't the demos stand behind someone or thing? This reminds me of 2003/04 when Howard Dean looked to be the nominee and all the libs come running over to support him just to support Kerry when Dean started to falter. If they were to stand behind something and stay with it instead of changing every time the wind blows a different way they would have much more support.

[Rex Kickass]

To answer your question, both Senators pledged to support the winner of the primary. Not Joementum regardless of what happens. These Senators are following through on their promise.

 

And with the GOP Senate candidate polling under 15%, I'm pretty sure that nothing much will happen with his candidacy.

[EvilMonkey]

The turnout was amazingly high for a summer primary - so the excuse that it wasn't the people of Connecticut speaking for the party is kinda squelched.

 

Like 400,000 votes or something.

 

Senators Bayh and Clinton, who both supported Joementum in the Primary, both have come out in support of Ned Lamont in the general.

It is also close enough that Ned shouldn't take it as some sort of mandate, since almost half the primary voters wanted his opponent.

 

Minors, when a candidate gets the party nomination, the leaders of that party have an obligation to support that person. In the big picture, the side with the most seats, regardless of who is sitting in them, gets the power.

[Balta1701]

Someone out there other than me has to find this one enjoyable.

 

It's time for Joe Lieberman and his friends in the Washington Establishment who distrust Ned Lamont and ordinary voters to acknowledge that Ned is now the Democratic Party's nominee for U.S. Senate, and that we as Democrats undermine our nominee's credibility at our party and our democracy's peril.

[Rex Kickass]

That's beautiful.

[samclemens]

so what does everyone think of joe leiberman's chances now that hes running as an indy, taking into consideration his 51%-48% loss in the primary?