As you'll recall, the Lieberman campaign hosted their website on a cheapy hosting account, probably paying in the tens of dollars per month for the service. When their website crashed due to heavy usage on Primary Day, they accused the Lamont campaign or his supporters of "hacking" his website.

We knew immediately why his site had gone down -- his shitty hosting account -- but Joe Lieberman, in full sanctimony, demanded an investigation into the website failure, forcing tax payers to fund civil and criminal investigations into the mater.

We already know that the US Attorney knew before the November elections that the charges were bogus, yet refused to reveal the information. We also know that Connecticut Attorney General Dick Blumenthal claims the Feds didn't update him on their investigation, hence he was unable to let the public know about Lieberman's bogus politically-charged accusations.

However, the reality is that the Feds DID tell Lieberman and Blumenthal about the results.

Thomas Carson, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney, said in a statement that the office updated the Lieberman campaign and Blumenthal on the investigation in late October 2006.

"In accordance with our usual practice . . . the Lieberman campaign, as the alleged victim, and the office of attorney general, which had been conducting a contemporaneous investigation . . . were provided with limited information," Carson said. "The investigation was administratively closed several weeks later."

Tom Swan, Lamont's former campaign manager, said Carson's response is alarming.

"They acknowledge letting the Lieberman campaign know and never letting anybody from the Lamont (campaign) know," Swan said.

The US Attorney's office knew that Lieberman's charges were bull before the November election, as did Dick Blumenthal, as did Joe Lieberman. Yet none decided to update the public on charges that had a clear political import in the then-current debate.

The US Attorneys were (are?) puppets of the Rove political machine. Their silence is obvious, and Lieberman has repaid that favor to George Bush many times over since his reelection. Dick Blumenthal was obviously carrying water for Lieberman.

And Lieberman? For someone who claims to be so religious, he sure is a dishonest, lying hack.

Update: For their part, Blumenthal's office still denies they had concluded there was no wrongdoing before the election. But they did receive information from the US Attorney's office before the election. What exactly was that information?

Update II: Blumenthal emails me:

As you know from your legal background, a prosecutor is limited as to what he can say about a case that produces no criminal charges, especially when it's a state official talking about a federal investigation.

I can say that my office's discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office prior to the election did not include any conclusions. The U.S. Attorney's Office did not inform my office of its conclusions until after the election.  

As I said in my statement, we were not informed of the FBI email or its contents or even its existence. Nor was any member of my staff given such information. This statement is not contradicted by anything said by the U.S. Attorney's Office. To have made any premature public predictions before our investigation ended in December 2006 would have been irresponsible and improper.

Interesting that the case magically gets closed just after the election when we had figured out the problem with Lieberman's website in about 45 minutes. It's still patently clear to me that Blumenthal's office and the US Attorney's office both dragged their feet until after the election. Why would they do that?

Race tracker wiki: CT-Sen

We know why the US Attorney in Connecticut would want to protect Joe Lieberman by refusing to release the details of their investigation into the alleged "hacking" of Lieberman's site the day of the Democratic primary. The last thing Karl Rove and Monica Goodling wanted was Lieberman embarrassed days before the general election by pointing out the rank incompetence of his campaign and lack of integrity in owning up to his b.s. accusations.

But what about Connecticut's Democratic Attorney General? Why would he carry water for Lieberman and protect the senator? Who knows. But what we do know now is that Blumenthal lied to blogger CT Bob about the case at the time.

[T]he [FBI] email was sent out on October 25th, 2006, about a week before the general election. The only reason it finally saw the light of day was because of an FOI request, otherwise it may have never been revealed.

The reason I felt queasy was because I remembered an interview I did with Blumenthal four days later (October 29th) but still before the election, at a fund raiser for Dave Mooney in Stratford. This is when news of the FBI's findings may have still made a difference.

In the interview, Blumenthal said there were no definite conclusions to the investigation and that it was ongoing.

Here's that interview:

Race tracker wiki: CT-Sen

Lieberman's spokesman Dan Gerstein, on his campaign being busted for lying about their website crash in the 2006 primary:

A spokesman for Mr. Lieberman, Dan Gerstein, said in a statement that the campaign had acted on the assessment of its Web site administrator, who believed the site had been attacked. And while he accepted the F.B.I.’s findings, he did not offer any regrets.

"We consider the matter closed," Mr. Gerstein said.

Legally, the matter was closed BEFORE the 2006 general election, in October of that year, and they didn't see fit to admit to the public that they had smeared the Ned Lamont campaign and bloggers like us. That would require integrity the likes not seen around Joe Lieberman since ... well, perhaps ever.

This wasn't rocket science. The Lieberman campaign was incompetent in its web dealings, as was painfully obvious the very day his site went down. Yet that didn't stop Gerstein and Lieberman from blaming their incompetence on others:

Visitors who tried to access Lieberman's site at the time received a message calling on Lamont to "make an unqualified statement denouncing this kind of dirty campaign trick and to demand whoever is responsible to cease and desist immediately."

And it didn't stop the traditional media from trumpeting those lies and smears, none of which bothered to ask their tech teams (or outside tech sources) to take a look and see if the Lieberman charges held any water.

It also didn't stop Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and US Attorney Kevin O'Connor from refusing to release details of Lieberman's bogus charges and his campaign's rank incompetence a week before the election, lest it hurt their friend's re-election chances. I'm sure Karl Rove and Monica Goodling were mighty pleased with O'Connor's work.

In short, a U.S. Senator demanded public funds be spent investigating a patently bogus and politically motivated charge, yet the public was refused access to the results of that investigation until well past the time where the voters could've properly assessed the situation in that election.

No one said Bush's and Rove's politicization of the Justice Department didn't pay dividends.

But still, Gerstein thinks "the matter is closed".

Legally, it is, but politically, it's not. It's just one more data point for a state that is increasingly disenchanted with Lieberman and suffering from buyer's remorse.

Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 3/31-4/2. Regular voters. MoE 4% (9/10-12/2007 results)

If you could vote again for U.S. Senate, would you vote for Ned Lamont, the Democrat, Alan Schlesinger, the Republican, or Joe Lieberman, an Independent?

All

Lamont (D)      51 (48)  
Lieberman (I)   37 (40)
Schlesinger (R)  7  (9)

Democrats

Lamont (D)      74 (72)  
Lieberman (I)   19 (25)
Schlesinger (R)  2  (3)

Republicans

Lamont (D)       4  (7)  
Lieberman (I)   74 (69)
Schlesinger (R) 19 (24)

Independents

Lamont (D)      53 (49)  
Lieberman (I)   36 (38)
Schlesinger (R)  6  (9)

For someone who pretends to be so pious, Lieberman and his lackeys exhibit a shocking lack of integrity. Sure, Connecticut Republicans love it since they are allergic to good government, but he's unsurprisingly lost his state's Democrats and independents.

It's just a matter of waiting out the clock until 2012.

Race tracker wiki: CT-Sen

Tonight has been all about appreciating and enjoying the "small" things in life. As I composed my Countdown musings, I was sitting on my bed munching on pizza from a local pizza place that I grew up with, downing my "elixor of life" (Diet Coke), and playing with whichever of my kitties decided to jump up and join me. After a craptacular day of panicky students and disorganized professors, I really needed this! Thank you all so much for your roll in what is quickly becoming the best part of my day!

Remember THIS?

As Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman fights for his political life, his campaign on Tuesday accused his opponent's backers of hacking into the senator's campaign Web site and shutting it down just in time for Connecticut's primary Election Day.

...and THIS?

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.

...and THIS?

Straretz noted that if Lieberman "hacking" charges prove false, the FBI and federal prosecutors could pursue charges against those who reported them. "If it was fabricated and you could prove intent, there's Title 18, Section 1001, which is providing false statements to an FBI agent. That can be prosecuted at the discretion of the U.S. Attorney's Office."

Given Lieberman's high-profile efforts on behalf of John McCain, I wondered how his constituents were taking it. So I had independent pollster Research 2000 reprise a poll I commissioned last year testing a rematch between Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman. I found last year that buyer's remorse had set in. It's even worse this year.

Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 3/31-4/2. Regular voters. MoE 4% (9/10-12/2007 results)

Lieberman has shored up his support with Republicans, who clearly see him as one of their own. He has predictably lost ground among Democrats. But interestingly, he also lost the same amount of ground (six points) with independents.

Clearly, his whole "independent" schtick isn't playing well with real independent voters. I'll have more on this poll later today. The crosstabs are below the fold. Crosstabs for last year's poll can be found here. Unfortunately, there's no approve/disapprove numbers from last time since I forgot to ask for that data (I think it was my first poll ever commissioned).

Race tracker wiki: CT-Sen

Today Connecticut named its add-on superdelegate. They chose Don Williams

Under the arcane Democratic rules, Connecticut had 11 superdelegates -- people whose status was determined by their political offices or positions in the Democratic Party -- plus an add-on to be chosen by the other delegates this week. That was Williams.

Williams is technically unpledged, as are all superdelegates, but he is a leader of the Obama campaign in Connecticut.

Watching the train wreck in motion now I'm beginning to believe its time for a new party.  Before biting my head off think about a few things.

Remember the Ned Lamont/Joe Lieberman primary of 2006?  How the leadership of the Democratic Party failed to step in for Ned Lamont and the fiasco that has resulted. Having to kiss the ass of self centered jerk who placed his own interests above that of the party.

The Democratic Leadership that has failed to stand up to Bush time and time again on the Iraq war.

I could go on and on but the point of this diary is this.  These are our same leaders that we now expect to step in and solve the Hillary Clinton issue facing us.  She has been allowed to go on even though numerically she cannot win.  She is being allowed to attack Obama in some of the most disgusting ways, i.e. by pratically endorsing McCain over Obama, by inserting race (thanks Bill), etc. If anyone thinks someone will step in and tell her to get out then I have some land to sell you.

This is our party?  Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton?  Two people who have consistently placed themselves over us the voter.

Maybe it's time to form a new party.  

I just received this invitation for an Obama fundraiser and it reads (in part):

Mark Califano
Cheryl and Cleve Christophe
Annie and Ned Lamont

&
Gail Worthington

Cordially invite you to join them in welcoming
Tony Lake

Obama for America
SENIOR FOREIGN POLICY ADVISOR  

Confusion and misinformation are two of the most powerful weapons in a desperate politician's arsenal. They were used by Joe Lieberman in the 2006 general election against Ned Lamont, and exit polls suggest that they helped Hillary Clinton blast her way through yesterday's primary in Ohio.

In the February 28th edition of the Huffington Post Lanny Davis, a long time Bill and Hillary supporter, wrote a longish opinion piece where he expressed grave concern about Barack Obama's electability in the general election.  

Davis' piece is really another hit-job on Obama by another inside-the-beltway Clintonista.  The article needs to be thoroughly debunked and I take my shot here.  

I think we need to begin asking whether Hillary Clinton is attempting to sabotage Barack Obama's chances in 2008 in order to preserve a shot for herself in 2012.  

If Obama is the nominee and wins, there will not be different Democratic nominee until 2016, when Obama's VP will likely be a front runner and Hillary Clinton will be 68.  She knows that if Obama wins in 2008, she will never be President.    

As others have pointed out (e.g. kubla000), the Clinton campaign is now running a negative advertisement that attacks Barack Obama in a manner eerily similar to how McCain has been and will be attacking Obama this fall.  

Disclaimer: I am the Online Outreach Director for SNAPPAC

Students for a New American Politics PAC is a student organization founded at Yale University in the aftermath of the 2004 election. The lesson that emerged from those disappointing results was that the only way to bring about a progressive majority would be to actively involve a new generation of voters to fundamentally change the political landscape in America. With the goal of critically engaging students in the emergence of a progressive majority, SNAPPAC began in the spring of 2005 as a politically action committee focused on providing financial assistance for students to actively work on progressive campaigns across the country. This effort not only helps cash-strapped campaigns by providing critical and talented campaign staff, but also allows students to gain the experience necessary to run future progressive campaigns.

(the disclosure is I voted for Obama, but I would write this even if I was a Hillary supporter)

The one thing that didn't match up in last night's results, to me, was Barack Obama's victory in Connecticut.  Hillary Clinton's leads in key northeastern states (Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York) all seemed to hold up - EXCEPT for Connecticut. He won despite exit polling showing that 59% of the electorate was female, and 30% was over 60.  Why?  What did this mean?

The New York Times thinks it has the answer.

Ned Lamont was not on the ballot, but his presence was nonetheless felt in Connecticut’s Democratic presidential primary.

(Cross-posted at spazeboy.net and Wesleying)
Today I'm going to venture into the world of live streaming, which is a departure from the videoblogging I have written about (and done) in the past.  So if there are any kinks in the process, please forgive them.

As part of a final push for Barack Obama in CT, Ned Lamont (who needs no introduction here) and Kal Penn (of Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle fame) are appearing at UConn, Wesleyan University, and Yale University today, rallying students to Obama's candidacy.  As you may already know, Ned Lamont endorsed Obama--an endorsement that just got a lot more meaningful since the race is between just two candidates who are polling within the margin of error of each other in Connecticut.

(Crossposted from Spazeboy.net)

Below are just the videos of their opening statements.  I had neither my camcorder nor my tripod with me, so I apologize in advance for the substandard quality of my videos this time around.  

Ned Lamont on behalf of Barack Obama

I don't have the same view of this as some people do. My view is Connecticut is an unmitigated blessing for the Democrats because Lieberman has said if he wins he's going to vote with us to organize the Senate. I'm interested in getting one of these houses back, because that's the only way, I think, we can move away from the philosophical and political and economic direction the country has taken in the last five years. So I'm doing what I can to help the Democrats win the House and the Senate or both.

Bill Clinton, September 20, 2006.

I attended a local Democratic Town Committee meeting last night here in Connecticut.  It was the meeting where a representative for each of the major Presidential candidates gives a little speech and then the floor opens up for questions.  Many of you have probably attended something like this in your town.  Well, ours was a little extra special because the representative for Barack Obama last evening was Ned Lamont.  

It was an interesting evening with only a little bit of what you might call breaking news , but it did allow me to reflect on what I have been thinking about this Presidential race.  And since no one around here has written a candidate diary in the last 7 seconds, I thought maybe I better.