About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Media that reported Lieberman's hacking charge against Lamont supporters have yet to report FBI found "no evidence of (an) attack"

April 29, 2008 8:12 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: Despite having reported the allegation by Sen. Joe Lieberman's campaign that supporters of Ned Lamont had "hacked" Lieberman's campaign website, ABC, CNN, and CBS have yet to report that an FBI investigation reportedly found "no evidence of (an) attack." The Advocate of Stamford, Connecticut, reported on April 9 that an October 2006 FBI email indicated that the FBI had found Lieberman's website "crashed because Lieberman officials continually exceeded a configured limit of 100 e-mails per hour the night before the primary."

65 Comments

Despite having reported the August 2006 allegation by Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman's re-election campaign that supporters of Ned Lamont, then his rival in the Democratic Senate primary, had "hacked" Lieberman's campaign website, numerous media outlets -- including ABC, CNN, and CBS -- have yet to report that an FBI investigation reportedly concluded before the November 2006 general election that there was "no evidence of (an) attack." To the contrary, according to an April 9 article in The Advocate of Stamford, Connecticut, an October 25, 2006, FBI email indicated that the FBI had found Lieberman's website "crashed because Lieberman officials continually exceeded a configured limit of 100 e-mails per hour the night before the primary." Thus, despite coverage of the Lieberman campaign's allegations against the Lamont campaign, ABC, CNN, and CBS have yet to report that the FBI not only exonerated the Lamont campaign, but that it was reported this month that the FBI concluded the website crash was the fault of the Lieberman campaign itself.

CNN reported the Lieberman campaign's allegations repeatedly on August 8, 2006, and a total of nine times from August 8, 2006, to September 8, 2006. As late as February 23 of this year, CNN correspondent Josh Levs reported on CNN Newsroom that "back in 2006, Joe Lieberman's campaign website went down. You remember this campaign. It was a big deal, him against Ned Lamont. Well, at the very end of his campaign, his site just pretty much disappeared, and his campaign is convinced it was an attack."

On the August 9, 2006, edition of ABC's Good Morning America, senior national correspondent Jake Tapper reported: "Lieberman's campaign complained to law enforcement that its website was hacked yesterday by devious anti-Lieberman forces. Lamont said he knew nothing about the hacking. But the incident was symbolic of the tornado of anti-war liberal Internet writers, called bloggers, that Lieberman faced." On the August 8, 2006, broadcast of the CBS Evening News, then-correspondent Trish Regan reported that Lieberman supporters were "nervous not only because of this race, but also because Lieberman's campaign website was hacked into and shut down today. They're pointing the finger at the Lamont camp."

A search* conducted by Media Matters for America on April 29 turned up no instances of CNN, ABC News, or CBS News programs reporting on the FBI's reported findings as of 11:59 pm ET on April 28. By contrast, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann, who reported the Lieberman campaign's allegations on the August 8, 2006, edition of Countdown, covered the reported results of the FBI investigation on April 9, 2008.

Lieberman's campaign website went down on August 7, 2006, the day before the Democratic primary. Quoting from the October 25, 2006, FBI email it obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request, The Advocate reported:

A federal investigation has concluded that U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman's 2006 re-election campaign was to blame for the crash of its Web site the day before Connecticut's heated Aug. 8 Democratic primary.

The FBI office in New Haven found no evidence supporting the Lieberman campaign's allegations that supporters of primary challenger Ned Lamont of Greenwich were to blame for the Web site crash.

Lieberman, who was fighting for his political life against the anti-Iraq war candidate Lamont, implied that joe2006.com was hacked by Lamont supporters.

"The server that hosted the joe2006.com website failed because it was overutilized and misconfigured. There was no evidence of (an) attack," according to the e-mail.

A program that could have detected a legitimate attack was improperly configured, the e-mail states.

"New Haven will be administratively closing this investigation," it concluded.

[...]

The Lieberman campaign alleged it was the target of a "denial of service attack," which can involve bombarding a Web site with external communications to slow it or render it useless.

"Our Web site consultant assured us in the strongest terms possible that we had been attacked," former Lieberman campaign spokesman Dan Gerstein said in December 2006.

According to the FBI memo, the site crashed because Lieberman officials continually exceeded a configured limit of 100 e-mails per hour the night before the primary.

"The system administrator misinterpreted the root cause," the memo stated. "The system administrator finally declared the server was being attacked and the Lieberman campaign accused the Ned Lamont campaign. The news reported this on Aug. 8, 2006, causing additional Web traffic to visit the site. The additional Web traffic then overwhelmed the Web server. ... Web traffic pattern analysis reports and Web logging that was available did not demonstrate traffic that was indicative of a denial of service attack."

On April 10, The New York Times also reported that, according to the FBI email obtained by The Advocate, "it was not angry bloggers or Mr. Lamont's insurgent campaign workers who rendered the site inaccessible, but sheer technological ineptitude." The April 9 Advocate report was also published in The Greenwich Time; both newspapers are owned by Gannett Co.

After losing the Democratic primary to Lamont, Lieberman ran for re-election to the Senate as an independent. Shortly after Lieberman defeated Lamont in the November 2006 general election, The Advocate reported that the U.S. attorney's office and state attorney general in Connecticut had "cleared" the Lamont campaign and its supporters of any wrongdoing. ABC, CNN, and CBS ignored that report as well. From a December 20, 2006, article in The Advocate:

The U.S. attorney's office and state attorney general have cleared former U.S. Senate candidate Ned Lamont and his supporters of any role in the crash of U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman's campaign Web site hours before last summer's Democratic primary.

"The investigation has revealed no evidence the problems the Web site experienced were the result of criminal conduct," said Tom Carson, spokesman for U.S. Attorney Kevin O'Connor.

State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal confirmed the joint investigation "found no evidence of tampering or sabotage warranting civil action by my office." Both men declined to provide additional information, such as what might have happened to the site.

According to an April 22, 2008, Advocate article, the office of state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said it "never saw or read the [October 25, 2006] FBI e-mail until its contents were reported by The Advocate" on April 9.

"Even when we work cooperatively, the FBI never shares such internal documents with my office, a practice and policy we respect given our very different roles and responsibilities," Blumenthal said.

Blumenthal, a Democrat, said his investigation into the joe2006.com crash "was active and ongoing" until December 2006.

"Throughout the investigation there were discussions between my office and the U.S. attorney's office regarding the direction of the federal investigation but not any conclusion until after the election," Blumenthal said. "To have made any premature public predictions before our investigation ended... would have been irresponsible and improper."

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."

Like the December 2006 and April 9 articles before it, the April 22 Advocate report has also been ignored by the major media outlets mentioned above that covered Lieberman's allegations against Lamont and his supporters.

From the August 9, 2006, edition of ABC's Good Morning America:

TAPPER: Lieberman said he'd continue his run as an independent.

LIEBERMAN: For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand on.

TAPPER: One reason things turned out this way: the Internet. Lieberman's campaign complained to law enforcement that its website was hacked yesterday by devious anti-Lieberman forces. Lamont said he knew nothing about the hacking. But the incident was symbolic of the tornado of anti-war liberal Internet writers, called bloggers, that Lieberman faced. They roused activists and influenced public opinion against him. Lamont even put one blogger from the popular Daily Kos website in a campaign ad.

And in his victory party last night, he had a special suite for his blogger friends. Lamont credits them for taking him seriously when the establishment media did not. Early on, posting information about where he'd be speaking next.

LAMONT: And all of a sudden, we had not 25 people, but 125 people, and that was the beginning of something.

TAPPER: Lieberman blames them for ugly rhetoric. Anti-Lieberman and pro-Lamont videos, more than 60,000 of them, were posted on YouTube exaggerating Lieberman's sometime alliances with Bush and his flaws.

[end video clip]

TAPPER: Lieberman, of course, continues his race running as an independent for the Senate. Bloggers now having proven themselves a potent political force, it'll be interesting to watch other Democrats try to cozy up to them and avoid the fate that befell Joe Lieberman -- Diane.

From the 1 p.m. ET hour of the August 8, 2006, edition of CNN's Live From ..:

KYRA PHILLIPS (anchor): Let's go straight to the newsroom. Betty Nguyen working details on a developing story -- Betty.

BETTY NGUYEN (anchor): Yeah, this is an interesting one. On the day of the Connecticut -- it's the Senate primary -- Joe Lieberman says his website has been hacked and that it's causing major disruptions, not only with the website but with its email. And he blames his challenger, Ned Lamont, for causing these problems.

Let me just read you a statement from the Lieberman campaign, this from the campaign manager, saying, "For the past 24 hours, the Friends of Joe Lieberman's website and email have been totally disrupted and disabled. We believe that this is the result of a coordinated attack by our political opponents. The campaign has notified the U.S. attorney and will be filing formal complaints reflecting our concerns."

Also goes on to say, "This type of dirty politics has been the staple of the Lamont campaign," referring to Ned Lamont, the challenger, "from the beginning, from the nonstop personal attacks to the intimidation tactics and offensive displays to these coordinated efforts to disable our website."

After this website was attacked, the Lieberman campaign called the Democratic state party chair and asked that the Lamont campaign call off its cyber allies.

Now, all of these claims, mind you, Kyra, coming from the Lieberman camp. Again, on -- today, the primary, where voters are, you know, placing their votes on who they want to represent them, whether it be Joe Lieberman or Ned Lamont.

We do have to tell you that CNN has tried to contact the Lamont campaign. We're making those calls as we speak -- this information just coming to us now. We do have correspondents on the ground to get to the bottom of this.

Lieberman says Lamont is responsible for this website attack, shutting down not only the website but the emails. We'll see if that's true or not. As soon as we get that information in, we'll bring it to you.

PHILLIPS: All right. Thanks, Betty.

From the 2 p.m. ET hour of the August 8, 2006, edition of CNN's Live From ..:

NGUYEN: Yeah, Kyra, we were following this, and, boy, it gets more interesting by the minute. Basically, the situation is: Joseph Lieberman is saying that his website was hacked and that there are major problems with it. People can't even access it, especially on voting day. Today is the primary.

People are headed to the polls to determine if they want Joe Lieberman or Ned Lamont to win this, and for those who wanted to go to joe2006, Lieberman's website, well, you can't. And if you go there now, you'll see an error message that says, "This account is under construction."

But we checked out a blog a little bit earlier that pulled a quick little still from this website earlier today, obviously because it's not the same message that's on it now, but it says, "This account has been suspended." At the bottom it says, "Please contact the billing and support department."

This is from the Daily Kos blog site.

Well, the Joseph Lieberman campaign heard about the accusation that they didn't pay their bill and they issued this statement, a statement which I have right now, that says, "Friends of Joe Lieberman, it's completely paid in full" -- referring to the website -- "The screen that showed yesterday is a default image from the server."

This has been down since last night around 7 p.m. and is still down. And it goes on to say, "Once we were able to isolate all the site files for study, we were able to add the appropriate one-page maintenance message," which is the message that you see right now when you try to go to Joe2006.com.

Now, the Lieberman campaign says this is not because of an error in paying their bills. They point the finger at the Ned Lamont campaign saying it's dirty politics and you're disenfranchising voters because today is the time for them to get information and head to the polls. They can't even access the site.

So, it's a tit for tat. Fingers are pointing everywhere. And Ned Lamont, as you well would assume, says he has nothing to do with it. There's no tampering of the website. So, we'll see.

PHILLIPS: All right. We'll monitor that developing story, also that intense rescue that's under way out of Phoenix, Arizona.

From the August 8, 2006, edition of the CBS Evening News:

REGAN: Supporters of Lieberman are expected here later tonight to watch the election results come in. They're nervous not only because of this race, but also because Lieberman's campaign website was hacked into and shut down today. They're pointing the finger at the Lamont camp. Now, Lieberman has said he will run in this election, in the general election, even if he has to run as an Independent. He has until tomorrow to file -- Harry.

HARRY SMITH (anchor): Trish Regan, thanks so much.

*A Media Matters Nexis search of "CNN Transcripts," "ABC News Transcripts" and "CBS News Transcripts" sources using the terms "Lieberman w/100 (website or webpage or internet or (web w/2 (site or page))) and Lamont" beginning August 8, 2006, did not yield any reporting by CNN, ABC, or CBS on the results of the FBI or other investigations exonerating Lamont and his supporters. A Factiva search for "Lieberman /n100/ (website or webpage or internet or (web /n2/ (site or page))) and Lamont" beginning April 21 did not yield any coverage of the FBI or other investigations exonerating Lamont and his supporters in the following Factiva sources: CBS' 60 Minutes, Evening News, Evening News-Saturday, Evening News-Sunday, Face the Nation, Morning News, The Early Show, The Saturday Early Show or on ABC's Good Morning America, Good Morning America-Sunday, This Week, World News Saturday, World News Sunday, and World News with Charles Gibson. Media Matters found no coverage during the April 27 broadcasts of CBS' Evening News with Russ Mitchell and CBS News Sunday Morning, or during the April 28 broadcast of ABC's Good Morning America.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by princeofwheels (April 29, 2008 9:08 pm ET)
         
      That Lieberman is such a kidder. He was just joking.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (April 29, 2008 9:18 pm ET)
         
      Ye gods...a real slow day for mmfa.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Sueelldd (April 29, 2008 9:53 pm ET)
           
        Geez, I agree, I guess also the media forgot to mention that Richard Jewel was not the olympic bomber. I also did not realize that the Stamford Advocate was a major source of news , that the mainstream media needs to report on it at this moment, and frankly who gives a f about that loser Lieberman and that hasbeen Ned Lamont. Stories on MMFA like this upset me.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mefirst (April 29, 2008 10:13 pm ET)
             
          no one said they need to report it "at this moment".  but if you read what this is about, it was repeated on cnn in february of this year, so the misinformation is still out there.  and we really don't need the "this source is not big enough so it should not be mentioned" nonsense.  leave that to tommy.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by carlileb5935 (April 30, 2008 3:33 am ET)
             

          When Richard Jewell was determined not to be the bomber, it received big coverage, as did his lawsuit against NBC.

          But this...? This is a perfectly good MMFA story-- there's also an MSM love affair with Liebermann, besides McCain.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Sueelldd (April 30, 2008 8:51 am ET)
               
            Well I am sure if Lamont sues NBC and CNN it will get coverage.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mefirst (April 30, 2008 9:37 am ET)
                 
              what would he sue them for?  they reported that the lieberman campaign made the charge.  the issue here is the fact that the media did not report the subsequent fbi report that the lamont campaign had nothing to do with it.   that would not be much of a lawsuit.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by wzwriter (April 30, 2008 9:40 am ET)
             

          Stories on MMFA like this upset me.

          Not as much as complaints like yours about MMFA annoys the rest of us.  If media outlets print derrogatory information about a liberal and later on to not correct themselves when that information is proven not to be true (as in this case), that constitutes conservative misinformation.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by JLyons (April 30, 2008 9:58 am ET)
               
            Speak for yourself WZ, Sue is entitled to her opinion and views just like the rest of us.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mefirst (April 30, 2008 10:16 am ET)
                 
              her opinion happens to be based on false analogies.  when richard jewell was found to be not involved in the olympic bombing, that was all over the news.  the media made public apologies.  that is entirely different from this case.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by wzwriter (April 30, 2008 10:37 am ET)
                   

                Precisely.  Complaining is fine, but when there's no sound basis for your complain, then it rings hollow.  And IMHO, many of Sue's complaints about MMFA and the stories posted here ring hollow.

                The same holds true for all those useless "why-is-this-here?" gripes.

                Report Abuse
            • Author by Sueelldd (April 30, 2008 10:20 am ET)
                 
              Thank you J
              Report Abuse
            • Author by wzwriter (April 30, 2008 10:33 am ET)
                 

              Speak for yourself WZ, Sue is entitled to her opinion and views just like the rest of us.

              Fine.  But if Sue is really bothered like stories like this on MMFA, why does she keep coming back here to gripe about them?

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Sueelldd (April 30, 2008 10:41 am ET)
                   

                What you call griping, I call dialogue.

                 

                 

                Report Abuse
                • Author by mefirst (April 30, 2008 10:51 am ET)
                     
                  why trash and blame lamont.  he was the victim of an unfair charge by the lieberman campaign.  it conceivably cost him votes.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by wzwriter (April 30, 2008 11:15 am ET)
                     

                  What you call griping, I call dialogue.

                  And what you call dlalogue, I call useless blather.

                  Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (May 01, 2008 9:45 am ET)
                 
              Yeah, and the rest of us have a right to be annoyed and tell her why
              Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (April 30, 2008 10:08 am ET)
             
          While the Stamford Advocate means nothing to you, it might mean something to the people of Connecticut. You know, the people who voted in the emocratic Primary for the senate in Connecticut.

          As you always state, but never show by your posts, you're not a conservative. If you were what you claim to be, you might be angry that the conservative in the Democratic primary for the Senate seat blamed your side for crashing it's servers when the FBI proved that there was nothing to the charges.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by JLyons (April 30, 2008 10:17 am ET)
               

            Work, just because Sue does  not like Ned Lamont does not mean she is a conservative.

            I live in Connecticut and I can tell you no one cares about the Stamford Advocate, NY Times and the NY Papers are still number one in this area.

             

            Report Abuse
            • Author by worrierking (April 30, 2008 3:32 pm ET)
                 
              I agree, that doesn't mean Sueld is a conservative. I just thought that her post was a little condescending.

              I was a union rep for printers for years and will always come to the defense of the printers and their workers in CT.

              I worked in Stamford for eighteen years. My point was that it was a local paper reporting on a local matter.

              The Advocate, The Courant, The Post and The Register are all small papers but they serve a purpose.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by Sueelldd (April 30, 2008 10:20 am ET)
               

            If you were what you claim to be, you might be angry that the conservative in the Democratic primary for the Senate seat blamed your side for crashing it's servers when the FBI proved that there was nothing to the charges.

            My side is this great country of ours, which is suffering becuase of among  things division and war. Look at how Obama is being treated now by the media.  I do not care about Ned Lamont, the guy is a loser, he could not defeat a man who supported this immmoral war. That should be the outrage. 

            Report Abuse
            • Author by wzwriter (April 30, 2008 11:50 am ET)
                 

              I do not care about Ned Lamont, the guy is a loser, he could not defeat a man who supported this immmoral war.

              For the record, Sue - Ned Lamont lost the General Election to Joe Lieberman because thousands of Republican voters in Connecticut abandoned their OWN candidate to vote for Joe, to thank him for brown-nosing Bush and as a way to embarrass the Democratic Party.  Plus Lieberman was able to call in years of "markers" to get endorsements and financial aid that really should have gone to the legitimate Democratic candidate - Ned Lamont.  That allows him to outspend Lamont when he really should have accepted defeat in the primary and slinked off into the corner.)

              2006 Election results from Wikipedia:

              Joe Lieberman (incumbent) - 564,095, or 49.7%

              Ned Lamont (D) - 450,844, or 39.7%

              Alan Schlesinger (R) - 109,196, or 9.6%

              (BTW, Sue - if you add up all the votes for Lamont, Schlesinger, and the other third-party candidates that I did not include above, more people in Connecticut voted AGAINST Lieberman than voted FOR him.) 

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Sueelldd (April 30, 2008 12:19 pm ET)
                   
                Same goes through for the 92 elections when Perot and Bush got more votes that Clinton but Bush was still a loser. Not sure what your point it.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by wzwriter (April 30, 2008 2:38 pm ET)
                     

                  Same goes through for the 92 elections when Perot and Bush got more votes that Clinton but Bush was still a loser. Not sure what your point it.

                  My point is that it was wrong for you to categorize Ned Lamont as a loser.  (BTW, it's OK to call Poppy Bush a loser, because the whole damn family are losers.)

                  Report Abuse
              • Author by princeofwheels (April 30, 2008 12:20 pm ET)
                   

                WZ, trying to throw facts into this discussion has to be considered Liberal information which has no place in the views of some of the posters here. Keep it up and you cause a new site to be implemented...RRARF........

                "Righties Rallying Against Reporting Facts".  Sorry they already have that it is called Fox News.

                Report Abuse
        • Author by onionhead (April 30, 2008 10:58 am ET)
             
           MMFA trying to set the record straight upsets you?
          Report Abuse
      • Author by truthseeker77 (April 29, 2008 10:05 pm ET)
           
        It is a big deal when the media leaves open the possibility that Ned Lamont hacked Lieberman's website. But you are a conservative, and you pretend this is nothing.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Sueelldd (April 29, 2008 10:18 pm ET)
             

          Well I am not a conservative, that is a weak attack by you on me.

          And who in the media said Ned Lamont personally sat down on a computer and hacked Liebermans web site?

          Please provide the names of those media people who said this.

           

          Report Abuse
          • Author by carlileb5935 (April 30, 2008 3:34 am ET)
               
            The implication is that those big bad Daily Kos people did this to poor Joe. And the MSM will let it stand.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Sueelldd (April 30, 2008 8:50 am ET)
                 
              That was not what Truthseeker said, from reading his comments, he said the media has been reporting that Ned Lamont did it on his own.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mefirst (April 30, 2008 9:34 am ET)
                   
                unless i miss my guess, i think what truthseeker was saying was that the media said the lamont campaign did the hacking.   that's how i took his comment.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by truthseeker77 (April 30, 2008 12:48 pm ET)
               

            Sueeld, you are making things up. I never  said  the media accused Lamont or  his camp of hacking Judas' site. I said they left open the possibility. The only way of discarding that possibility would have been telling the people that the FBI said this was bullshyt.

            If Peter says, "Jack killed my mother", people will wonder, "gee, I wonder if Jack really did that". If the media doesn't report a trial absolving Jack, they would be leaving open the possibility that Jack murder the poor lady.

            Reading is fundamental.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Sueelldd (April 30, 2008 12:51 pm ET)
                 
              And words mean things. You said Lamont, not his camp
              Report Abuse
              • Author by friedbergboy1422 (April 30, 2008 12:53 pm ET)
                   

                Sue,

                Now that you know what TruthSeeker means, what is your stance?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Sueelldd (April 30, 2008 12:54 pm ET)
                     

                  I am glad he clairified that Ned Lamont did not go behind his computer and hack Joe Ls website.

                   

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by friedbergboy1422 (April 30, 2008 3:07 pm ET)
                       
                    And don't you think the media should report its mistake, Sue?
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by truthseeker77 (April 30, 2008 12:55 pm ET)
                   

                But do you admit that I never said the media accused Lamont of hacking Lieberman's website?

                 

                Report Abuse
            • Author by Sueelldd (April 30, 2008 12:54 pm ET)
                 

              This is what you did say

              It is a big deal when the media leaves open the possibility that Ned Lamont hacked Lieberman's website. But you are a conservative, and you pretend this is nothing.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by truthseeker77 (April 30, 2008 12:59 pm ET)
                   

                Exactly, You proved my point. You asked me to show you who in the media accused Lamont of hacking Judas' site, but as you wrote, I only said they left open the possibility.

                You tell me, before the FBI conclusion, wasn't the possibility open that Lamont could have done it, due to the fact that Lieberman had suspicions and the FBI opened an investigation?

                Report Abuse
    • Author by anotheramerican (April 29, 2008 10:00 pm ET)
         
      Yawn.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Sueelldd (April 29, 2008 10:22 pm ET)
           
        double yawn. I wonder if Lamont made a donation this week?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by friedbergboy1422 (April 30, 2008 9:41 am ET)
           
        So, AA, if one of your candidates was accused of something like this publicly and then exonerated, you wouldn't want a public exoneration for him or her?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (April 30, 2008 11:36 am ET)
             
          Let's test that idea. AA, here's another republican criminal. Why can't you guys find someone honest and trustworthy to be your representatives?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by friedbergboy1422 (April 30, 2008 11:39 am ET)
               
            Better yet, let's get a politician to hurl slanderous accusations against a Republican candidate and let them fester.  When its found the accusations are false, make sure no one reports the story.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by snoopy (April 30, 2008 11:44 am ET)
                 
              problem with that is it's hard to make a false accusation against a republican. It's pretty hard to find something to lie about, they are so crooked!
              Report Abuse
    • Author by christopher howard (April 29, 2008 10:04 pm ET)
         
      It's not a big story, and shouldn't be, but the media widely reported Lieberman's allegations when he made them. If ABC, CNN, and CBS haven't set the record straight, they should. Lieberman is in the election spotlight as he travels around with McCain. His past false pronouncements shouldn't be totally ignored.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mary59 (April 29, 2008 11:44 pm ET)
         
      I wish that joltin' joe had left and gone away. hey hey hey.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by princeofwheels (April 30, 2008 2:31 am ET)
         
      Come on Sen. Lieberman...say it ain't so Joe
      Report Abuse
    • Author by JLyons (April 30, 2008 9:57 am ET)
         

      Oh MY God , what a silly story.
      Frankly the way the nation is in such horrible shape today, I think we all want to get on and not bring up stupid stuff like the 2006 CT Senate Campaign. Frankly if Lamont did win, we would still be in Iraq. Nothing has changed, this nation is still fighting an illegal war.

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (April 30, 2008 10:14 am ET)
           
        once again, this is not a "news" site.  it's about conservative media misinformation, which helped get us into this war.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Sueelldd (April 30, 2008 10:22 am ET)
           

        J, I do agree with you about Lamont, the 06 elections proved false.

        I pray Obama wins so this war will end, i do not see it ending with people like McCain and Hillary.  I mean she is so evil she uses an ad that shows Obama and Osama and will be on OReilly tonight.  What is this world coming to?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by JLyons (April 30, 2008 10:30 am ET)
             
          Sadly Obama is the only one who will stop this war at this point (that is my hope) but the media wants to talk about Rev Wright. 
          Report Abuse
        • Author by truthseeker77 (April 30, 2008 12:52 pm ET)
             
          Obama also appeared in Fox, and the Bin Laden picture was flashed for half a second along with Katrina, gas prices and other crisis. Don't exaggerate or put things out of context.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Sueelldd (April 30, 2008 1:37 pm ET)
               
            So it is ok to scare people with ads that show Osama and political candidates?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mefirst (April 30, 2008 2:13 pm ET)
                 
              she was saying it was a dangerous world, not trying to link Obama with him.  obama does not appear in the ad with bin laden.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by JLyons (April 30, 2008 2:20 pm ET)
                 
              Sue it is never okay , especially from  a Democratic candidate. We expect these things from the vile Republicans but when Hillary did that it was very disapointing. Not as bad as what the Reubs did to Max Cleland who is an hero but Hillary was trying to equate Obamas name with Osama.  Very very disturbing. Your friend Keith Olbermann scolded her last week for that when he interviewed her.  Of course it because a love fest and they kissed and made up.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by hogprint (May 01, 2008 9:00 am ET)
         

      Slow day for MMfA...

      I got a scoop for ya...

      When Morning Joe introduced McCain this morning they led in with There Goes my Hero, by Foo Fighters.  

      :) 

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.