Two posts down it's clear that Lieberman's website isn't suffering from a Denial of Service attack.

But now 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.

Here's the deal -- you get what you pay for. My hosting bill is now over $7K per month. A smaller site doesn't need that much bandwidth, but if you're paying $15 because your $12 million campaign is too freakin' cheap to pay for quality hosting, then don't go blaming your opponent when your shitty service goes out.

For their part, the Lamont campaign has offered its technical expertise to get Lieberman's site back up (which could be done in an hour by a competent sysadmin), and has added a link to the googlecached version of Lieberman's site at the top of their blog.

One side is acting mature, the other is running around making baseless accusations.

Update: Dan Gerstein, Lieberman spokesperson, admits they have no evidence Lamont's campaign or his supporters are behind their website woes.

I'm telling you, it's down because they were too cheap to pay for quality hosting. That's a lesson to all of you campaigns skimping on hosting. $15 won't cut it.

Update II: Joe's site shares one server with 73 other sites. They pay $15/month for an overcrowded server, and then they blame others when it goes down? Full list of sites on Joe's server on the flip.

Update III: From an email:

http://www.meetned.com/ 69.56.129.130

http://www.joe2006.com/ 69.56.129.130 MeetNed.com - Up.

Joe2006.com - Down.

DoS attacks don't affect particular accounts on a server. They bring down the whole server. The attack site is up, their campaign site is down. This isn't a DoS attack.

Will the Lieberman campaign reimburse state and federal investigators wasting resources to confirm that the site went down because the campaign was too cheap to hire a quality hosting provider?