Thursday, August 10, 2006

Did Ned Cheat?

Not content to merely buy the Democratic Senate Primary earlier this week, did challenger Ned Lamont try to steal it?

Lost in the post-election media gushing over Lamont's victory against incumbent Joe Lieberman is what happened to Lieberman's Web site, which crashed less than 24 hours before the election.

A NY Times story yesterday chronicles the event but provides no resolution. Here's a synopsis:

On Monday, Lieberman's site crashed under what his Internet provider said was an unusually large swell of traffic -- characterized as a denial of service attack. Lieberman's team immediately blamed the Lamont camp.

Lamont's team and his supporters denied they were involved, saying that Lieberman's site collapsed under its own weight because of inadequate server capacity. They claimed that site only had only 10 gigabytes per month of capacity.

But Lieberman's Internet service provider countered that the site actually had 200 gigabytes per month of capacity, which should have been ample.

Assuming that's true, the site was almost certainly targeted for a DOS attack -- it had, in fact, been hacked twice in the previous month.

Could losing the site less than a day before the election have made a difference in the outcome? Most certainly, considering that Lamont only prevailed by a margin of only 4 percent over Lieberman.

If Lamont's organization wasn't directly involved in the attack, it's almost certain that some of his supporters were.

Which raises questions about the character of his supporters, as well as his own --it's that whole "the company you keep" thing.


Craig Bob said...

Wait just one minute ... are you suggesting that traffic on Lieberman's site increased as the election drew closer? Shocked, I am.

JBlog said...

No, I'm suggesting that there is a distinct difference between a normal, anticipated increase in traffic in the run-up to the election and a flood of automated queries characteristic of a DOS attack.

Are you suggesting that a liberal who based his entire campaign on a platform of partisanship and intolerance is incapable of this type of dirty trick?

Craig Bob said...

I wouldn't put it past any politician but I also understand that Lieberman's team hosted the site at a low-end, cheapo ISP. So, it's possible the ISP just got max'ed out.

On a semi-related note, isn't it ironic that the first politician to get bounced due to the Iraq war is a democrat? Ironic, I say, flat-out ironic.

JBlog said...

As I reported in my post, that was the Lamont teams supposition -- only 10 gigs/month of capacity and low-end servers, but the Lieberman team disputes that -- seems like they'd know best what they were running their site on.

As to the "wouldn't put it past any politician thing," yeah but liberals are supposed to be oh so much more intelligent, tolerant and moral than the rest of us. I mean, they tell us that all the time. Are you saying that even they can stoop to such Nixonian tactics? Why, that would make them the biggest bunch of crap-spewing hypocrites in the universe, no?

As to the bounce factor, I wouldn't make too much of it. Lamont won by 4 percent, and as Democrats routinely reminded us after the last presidential election margins that slim are not a mandate. I think that holds especially so in a primary.

Don't forget, Cynthia McKinney got bounced too, and she's one the biggest bull-goose antiwar nutjobs in Congress

This is pretty clear though: if Lieberman wins as an independent in the general election, as he is very likely to do, it will be humiliating for the Democrats.