Stanford Advocate: “Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman, locked in a battle with an anti-war challenger in the nation’s most closely watched primary race Tuesday, accused his opponent’s supporters of hacking his campaign Web site and e-mail system.”
The MeFites have plenty of evidence suggesting that this wasn’t a DoS attack. It may be possible that Joe didn’t pay his bills.
Meanwhle, the Lamont campaign has offered to send in their tech guy to fix the Leiberman website problem and offers a cached link to Leiberman at the top of the page. On a microcosmic level, I ask the Connecticut voters to consider this: would you prefer a man who freaks out, makes accusations and calls the DA when he can’t figure out his website problems or a man who offers to fix his competitor’s website as your Senator?
[RELATED: These signs are hilarious.]
The latest, or second latest–I forget–New Yorker has an article about wikipedia (as does the latest atlantic monthly!), and it mentions that there have been times when the entire House of Representatives has had to ban themselves from wikipedia because members keep attempting to use it to rewrite their voting histories, and to erase mentions of failed campaign promises.
Actually, here’s the link and a quote:
Can Wikipedia conquer expertise?
Pettiness, idiocy, and vulgarity are regular features of the site. Nothing about high-minded collaboration guarantees accuracy, and open editing invites abuse. Senators and congressmen have been caught tampering with their entries; the entire House of Representatives has been banned from Wikipedia several times. (It is not subtle to change Senator Robert Byrd’s age from eighty-eight to a hundred and eighty. It is subtler to sanitize one’s voting record in order to distance oneself from an unpopular President, or to delete broken campaign promises.)