There are many, many strange things coming out of the Connecticut primary ... one of my favorites is the list of technology glitches, the biggest being the disappearance of Lieberman's own website.
Just before the primary, Lieberman's website and email went down. Deader than a doornail. Given that the vote is so soon, Lieberman's people assume it's an attack.
"Voters cannot go to our Web site. They cannot access information," according to Lieberman campaign manager Sean Smith, "It is a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise voters."
And indeed, such tactics have been seen before, particularly some rabid attacks on Howard Dean's website in 2004. But as the facts finally present themselves, we see that an attack cannot be the answer this time. Why? Shared hosting.
The server on which Lieberman's site rests is also home to about sixty (60) other sites. Any attack on the server would have taken down all sixty, not just the one. It is the computer serving the site which crashes - attacks cannot be focused on just one site. So an attack is not the answer.
But the site did go down. That much is plainly in evidence ... so what happened?
Cheap hosting.
Here's the real story: they setup their shop at, most likely, the cheapest alternative they could find – a place called MyHostCamp which charges $15 per month. What they failed to consider was that a host on the cheap end of the price range would also be on the low end of the bandwidth range.
MyHostCamp has a 10G limit on bandwidth. Let's put that in English: your site's home page is 10K in size. One person views your page. You've just spent 10K in bandwidth. Every time your page is viewed, another 10K is subtracted from your limit. When you reach zero, your site is cut off. That's what you get with a low-priced hosting firm.
Lieberman's site wasn't hacked – it exceeded its bandwidth limit and was shut off by the provider.
What amazes me is that Lieberman's campaign had a $12 million war chest. What on earth were they doing with MyHostCamp when so many quality providers are out there for as little as $5 more per month?
I'm guessing that, like many in the business community, Lieberman's people didn't see the difference between $15, $20 and $50 hosting. They assumed that companies charging more money were simply raking in more profit, rather than providing better service.
Sigh.
And yet, if you've ever made that mistake, at least you know you're not alone. :)